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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 17 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.
Applicant argues Akbari does not teach or suggest "determin[ing] spatial and temporal characteristics of [] detected light, the temporal characteristics including frequency domain data for [a] sample... generation of [a] representation of the sample including spatially resolving the frequency domain data with a tomographic reconstruction of the sample."
Newly found reference Alford et al. (Pub. No.: US 2019/0336005) discloses tissue response as a function of modulation frequency (i.e., in the frequency domain) wherein temporal and spatial filtering based on known models of hemodynamic, neural, motion and other responses in order to extract from these time-varying estimated tissue parameters a set of signals specific to neural, hemodynamic or motion based variables, see paragraph [0140]. Further, multiple optical paths 14 may facilitate the generation of a high-resolution functional map of the upper layer of cortex of the brain 12 with spatial resolution given by the x-y plane (i.e., along the plane of the scalp 17) confinement of the paths, in the manner of tomographic volume reconstruction, see paragraph [0148].
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.
Claims 1-3, 5, 7-13, 16-19, 21, 23-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akbari et al. (Pub. No.: US 2021/0338092) in view of Alford et al. (Pub. No.: US 2019/0336005).
Consider claims 1, 17, Akbari discloses an optical imaging system (paragraph [0142], Spatial Frequency Domain Imaging (SFDI) and Laser Speckle Imaging (LSI)), comprising:
a light source configured to generate a spatially-distributed illumination beam of temporally-varying light (paragraph [0068], light sources may be configured to emit modulated light signal including temporal modulation and/or spatial modulation);
a detector configured to detect light resulting from an interaction between the illumination beam and a sample (paragraph [0068], detectors may be configured to detect one or more backscattered light signals to allow for determination of a value of the tissue absorption metric and the tissue scattering metric); and
a processor configured to: determine spatial and temporal characteristics of the detected light (paragraph [0074], frequency-domain diffuse optical spectroscopy (FD-DOS) may be used to separate tissue absorption and scattering coefficients by using modulated light); and
generate a representation of the sample based on the determined spatial and temporal characteristics (paragraph [0068], modulated light signal may allow for measurement of a tissue absorption metric and a tissue scattering metric wherein tissue scattering metrics obtained from frequency domain photon migration (FDPM), see paragraphs [0099] and [0100] [0138]).
Akbari does not specifically disclose the temporal characteristics including frequency domain data for the sample and generation of the representation of the sample including spatially resolving the frequency domain data with a tomographic reconstruction of the sample.
Alford discloses the temporal characteristics including frequency domain data for the sample (paragraph [0140], tissue response as a function of modulation frequency (i.e., in the frequency domain) wherein temporal and spatial filtering based on known models of hemodynamic, neural, motion and other responses in order to extract from these time-varying estimated tissue parameters a set of signals specific to neural, hemodynamic or motion based variables) and generation of the representation of the sample including spatially resolving the frequency domain data with a tomographic reconstruction of the sample (paragraph [0148], multiple optical paths 14 may facilitate the generation of a high-resolution functional map of the upper layer of cortex of the brain 12 with spatial resolution given by the x-y plane (i.e., along the plane of the scalp 17) confinement of the paths, in the manner of tomographic volume reconstruction).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace optical imaging system as disclosed by Akbari with the optical imaging system as taught by Alford in order to extract from these time-varying estimated tissue parameters a set of signals specific to neural, hemodynamic or motion based variables (Alford, paragraph [0140]).
Consider claims 2, 18, the combination of Akbari and Alford discloses wherein the light resulting from the interaction is light transmitted through the sample (paragraph [0121], Illuminate the tissue with the coherent and incoherent light source(s)).
Consider claims 3, 19, the combination of Akbari and Alford discloses wherein the detected light is diffuse light (paragraph [0148], diffuse reflectance against tissue).
Consider claims 5, 21, the combination of Akbari and Alford discloses wherein spatial and temporal variations of the illumination beam are according to a modulation function (paragraph [0068], modulated light signal may allow for measurement of a tissue absorption metric and a tissue scattering metric wherein tissue scattering metrics obtained from frequency domain photon migration (FDPM), see paragraphs [0099] and [0100]), and wherein the processor is further configured to demodulate the detected light to determine the characteristics with based on the modulation function (paragraph [0147], demodulation).
Consider claims 7, 23, the combination of Akbari and Alford discloses wherein the light source comprises a projector configured to project light according to a source pattern to generate a series of spatially- modulated illumination beams (paragraph [0046], Fig. 15, spatial light modulator that acts as a projector).
Consider claims 8, 24, the combination of Akbari and Alford discloses wherein the detector is a collector configured to collect light from the sample using a detection pattern controlled independently of the source pattern and wherein the detection pattern is complementary to the source pattern (paragraph [0070], device may comprise two or more detectors with different source-detector separations, and the different source-detector separations may allow the device to distinguish between signals from different depth).
Consider claims 9, 25, the combination of Akbari and Alford discloses wherein the temporally-varying light comprises intensity-modulated and spatially-modulated light (paragraph [0068]).
Consider claims 10, 11, 26, 27, the combination of Akbari and Alford discloses wherein the light source comprises a projector configured to project light of at least two fixed wavelengths (paragraph [0046], Fig. 15, SFDI, light-emitting diodes (LEDs) of 655 nm, 730 nm, and 850 nm are sequentially sent into a spatial light modulator that acts as a projector).
Consider claims 12, 28, the combination of Akbari and Alford discloses wherein the light source is configured to project light of a wavelength associated with detection of a dynamic physiological property of biological tissue (paragraph [0095], delivers light at the higher-energy range of the visible spectrum (e.g., 655 nm) for sensitivity to deoxyhemoglobin, and the other fiber delivers light at the lower-energy range of the near-infrared spectrum (e.g., 850 nm) for sensitivity to oxyhemoglobin).
Consider claims 13, 29, the combination of Akbari and Alford discloses wherein the wavelength provides for detection of a concentration of at least one of deoxygenated hemoglobin (Hb), oxygenated hemoglobin (HbOz), water (H20), and lipids (paragraph [0065], oxygenated hemoglobin concentration, deoxygenated hemoglobin concentration).
Consider claims 16, 30, the combination of Akbari and Alford discloses wherein the representation of the sample comprises an absorption map, a scattering map, or a combination thereof (paragraph [0068], modulated light signal may allow for measurement of a tissue absorption metric and a tissue scattering metric wherein tissue scattering metrics obtained from frequency domain photon migration (FDPM), see paragraphs [0099] and [0100]).
Claims 4, 14, 15, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Akbari and Alford in view of Krishnaswamy et al. (Pat. No.: US 10,485,425).
Consider claims 4, 20, the combination of Akbari and Alford discloses does not specifically disclose wherein the spatially-distributed illumination beam comprises a wide-field illumination beam.
Krishnaswamy discloses wherein the spatially-distributed illumination beam comprises a wide-field illumination beam (col. 3, line 61 to col. 4, line 20, spatial frequency domain imaging (SFDI)) is a reflectance-based wide-field imaging modality).
Therefore, in order to reflect light that contains information from different feature scales and sampling volumes, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied the same technique as suggested by Krishnaswamy wherein the spatially-distributed illumination beam comprises a wide-field illumination beam, see teaching found in Krishnaswamy, col. 3, line 61 to col. 4, line 20.
Consider claims 14, 15, the combination of Akbari and Alford does not specifically disclose wherein the detector is a wide-field sensor.
Krishnaswamy discloses wherein the detector is a wide-field sensor (col. 8, lines 17 to 22, illuminate and image the tissue surface with three or more phases of structured light to extract the demodulated response at each pixel of the tissue field).
Therefore, in order to determine biologically interesting results from these ratios as well as the scatter parameters, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied the same technique as suggested by Krishnaswamy wherein the detector is a wide-field sensor, see teaching found in Krishnaswamy, col. 7, line 65 to col. 8, line 16.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GERALD JOHNSON whose telephone number is (571)270-7685. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm EST.
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, Carey Michael can be reached at (571)270-7235. 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.
/Gerald Johnson/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3797
Prosecution Insights