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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I, claims 1-9 in the reply filed on 7/25/25 is acknowledged. Claims 10-22 are withdrawn from consideration. Claims 1-9 are under consideration in this Office Action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-9 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.
As detailed in infra rejections, claims 1, 3-4, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ghijsen in further view of Di Sieno; claim 2 over Ghijsen in further view of Di Sieno in further view of Postnikov; claim 5 over Ghijsen in further view of Di Sieno in further view of Ulku; and claims 6-8 over Ghijsen in further view of Di Sieno in further view of Mazdeyasana.
Information Disclosure Statement
Applicant is again reminded of their duty to disclose all information known to be material to patentability to the Office. The inventors have a significant amount of undisclosed publication and patent application filing history that predate the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Applicant alleges that there is support for the newly introduced limitation of “a controller to synchronized the time-gated camera and, simultaneously, activation of each of the at least two pulsed laser sources” “in the original claim language, as well as in Figs. 3A and 3B, for example.” Remarks at 6. A review of the originally filed claim language filed 9/22/23 reveals no support for simultaneous activation of each of the at least two pulse laser sources let alone that the controller is configured to perform the activation.
For example, claim 10 recites “at least one optical switch to switch between the at least two pulsed light sources,” “a controller to synchronize the time-gated camera and the at least two pulse laser sources,” and “using the at least two pulsed laser sources to apply pulsed widefield illumination at multiple wavelengths.” None of these recitations require that the two pulse laser sources are activated simultaneously let alone that the controller is configured to perform the activation.
Figures 3A and 3B and the corresponding disclosure in paragraphs [0089]-[0091] discusses “gated strategies to multiple wavelengths for data acquisition of both BF and STO2 at different depths of the tissue,” “employs nanosecond or picosecond pulsed NIR lasers at different wavelengths, such as λ1=785 nm and λ2=830 nm,” and “[t]his combination enables the simultaneous acquisition of diffuse laser speckle fluctuations for imaging BF and the light intensities (Iλ)) at multiple wavelengths (λ≥2) for mapping concentrations of oxy-hemoglobin [HbO2] and deoxy-hemoglobin [Hb], thereby providing a multimodal capability.” At best, this discloses “the simultaneous acquisition of diffuse laser speckle fluctuations for imaging BF and the light intensities (Iλ)) at multiple wavelengths (λ≥2),” i.e., the simultaneous acquisition of speckle fluctuation and light intensity for each wavelength in a plurality of wavelengths. This does not disclose that the images of the multiple wavelengths are acquired simultaneously, only that the laser speckle fluctuations and light intensity images are acquired simultaneously. There is no disclosure that the two pulsed laser sources are activated simultaneously let alone that the controller is configured to perform the activation.
The remainder of applicant’s originally filed disclosure does not provide any support for the newly introduced subject matter. Thus, the newly recited subject matter fails to comply with the written description requirement. Claims 2-9 are rejected as depending from independent claim 1.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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, 3-4, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ghijsen et al. (“Quantitative real-time optical imaging of the tissue metabolic rate of oxygen consumption” 2018), hereinafter “Ghijsen,” in further view of Di Sieno et al. (“Probe-hosted large area silicon photomultiplier and high-throughput timing electronics for enhanced performance time-domain functional near-infrared spectroscopy” 2020), hereinafter “Di Sieno.”
Regarding claim 1, Ghijsen discloses a system for noncontact (noncontact, P.1, ¶1), multiwavelength (dual-wavelength, P.1, ¶1), laser speckle contrast imaging (M-LSCI) (coherent spatial frequency-domain imaging implementing laser speckle imaging and spatial frequency-domain imaging to measure speckle contrast, P.1, ¶1, P.1, ¶6 – P.2, ¶4) of tissue blood flow (tissue blood flow, P.1, ¶1, P.1, ¶6 – P.2, ¶4), tissue blood oxygenation (tissue oxy- and deoxyhemoglobin concentration, P.1, ¶1, P.1, ¶6 – P.2, ¶4), and metabolic rate of tissue oxygen consumption (tissue metabolic rate of oxygen consumption, tMRO2, P.1, ¶1, P.1, ¶6 – P.2, ¶4) in a subject (in vivo tests in humans or animals, P.1, ¶1), comprising:
at least two laser sources, each capable of emitting light at near-infrared (NIR) range of 600-1100 nm, for illuminating tissue (two laser diode light sources at 660 nm and 852 nm for illuminating the tissue sample, P.2. ¶5, Fig. 1);
at least one diffuser in front of each of the at least two laser sources to generate a wide-field illumination (diffuser in front of each of the at least two laser diode light sources to generate a wide-field illumination, P.2, ¶5, Fig. 1; see also wide FOV and wide-field mapping of tMRO2, P.1, ¶1; see also wide-field imaging, P.1, ¶6-P.2, ¶4);
a camera (CMOS camera, P.2, ¶5, Fig. 1);
a controller for data collection (combined diode driver and TEC controllers, P.2, ¶5);
a computing device having a processor for processing data (raw data/images are processed using a processor, P.2, ¶6 – P.3, ¶3) to generate hemodynamic images on a display (raw data/images are processed into images of tissue blood flow, SFI, speckle contrast, oxy-/deoxyhemoglobin concentration, Hb)2 and HHb, and tissue metabolic rate of oxygen consumption, tMRO2, P.1, ¶1, P.1, ¶6 – P.2, ¶4, P.2, ¶6 – P.3, ¶3, P.4, ¶2-12, Figs. 4-6).
However, Ghijsen does not appear to disclose a system for time-resolved laser speckle contrast imaging, comprising: at least two pulsed laser sources, at time-gated camera, and a controller to synchronize the time-gated camera and, simultaneously, activation of each of the at least two pulsed laser sources for data collection,
However, in the same field of endeavor of optical imaging of tissue, Di Sieno teaches a system for time-resolved laser contrast imaging (time-domain functional near-infrared spectroscopy instrument for imaging absorption, scattering, and contrast, Title, Abstract, 1. Introduction, 2.3.3 nEUROPt protocol, 3.3 nEUROPt protocol, 3.3 In-vivo measurements, 4. Conclusions and future perspectives), comprising:
at least two pulsed laser sources, each capable of emitting light pulses in nanosecond or picosecond width at near-infrared (NIR) range of 600-1100 nm, for illuminating tissue (two high power laser heads operating at 670 nm and 830 nm, respectively, pulsed at 40 MHz, 2.1 Setup; laser pulses have a duration of tens/hundreds of picoseconds, 1. Introduction);
a time-gated camera (SiPM detector, 1. Introduction, 2.1 Setup; time-gating of the SiPM detector, 2.3.3. nEUROPt protocol, 3.3 nEUROPt protocol, 3.4 In-vivo measurements); and
a controller to synchronize the time-gated camera and, simultaneously, activation of each of the at least two pulsed laser sources at 10-80 MHz for data collection (timing electronics and laser driver to synchronize the SiPM detector at 40 MHz for data collection, 2.1 Setup; two high power laser heads operating at 670 nm and 830 nm, respectively, are activated simultaneously, by the timing electronics and laser driver, 2.1 Setup, 2.3.4. In-vivo measurements, 3.4. In-vivo measurements).
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 Di Sieno’s known technique of performing time-domain functional near-infrared spectroscopy imaging using an optical imaging device comprising two simultaneously activated laser sources of different NIR wavelengths and a time-gated camera to Ghijsen’s known apparatus for multiwavelength laser speckle contrast imaging using an optical imaging device comprising two laser sources and a camera to achieve the predictable result that using a probe-hosted large area silicon photomultiplier detector coupled to high-throughput timing electronics results in superior signal-to-noise ratio in near-infrared spectroscopy imaging. See, e.g., Di Sieno, Abstract and 1.Introduction.
Regarding claim 3, Di Sieno further teaches the time-gated camera has a gate step resolution of picoseconds (temporal resolution of picoseconds, 2.1 Setup).
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 Di Sieno’s known technique of performing time-domain functional near-infrared spectroscopy imaging using an optical imaging device comprising two simultaneously activated laser sources of different NIR wavelengths and a time-gated camera to Ghijsen’s known apparatus for multiwavelength laser speckle contrast imaging using an optical imaging device comprising two laser sources and a camera to achieve the predictable result that using a probe-hosted large area silicon photomultiplier detector coupled to high-throughput timing electronics results in superior signal-to-noise ratio in near-infrared spectroscopy imaging. See, e.g., Di Sieno, Abstract and 1.Introduction.
Regarding claim 4, Di Sieno further teaches the time-gated camera has a gate width of nanoseconds (gate width of nanoseconds, 3.3 nEUROPt protocol, 3.3 In-vivo measurements).
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 Di Sieno’s known technique of performing time-domain functional near-infrared spectroscopy imaging using an optical imaging device comprising two simultaneously activated laser sources of different NIR wavelengths and a time-gated camera to Ghijsen’s known apparatus for multiwavelength laser speckle contrast imaging using an optical imaging device comprising two laser sources and a camera to achieve the predictable result that using a probe-hosted large area silicon photomultiplier detector coupled to high-throughput timing electronics results in superior signal-to-noise ratio in near-infrared spectroscopy imaging. See, e.g., Di Sieno, Abstract and 1.Introduction.
Regarding claim 9, Ghijsen discloses wherein the subject is one of a human or an animal (in vivo tests in humans or animals, P.1, ¶1).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ghijsen in further view of Di Sieno as in claim 1 above, and further in view of Postnikov et al. (“MATLAB for laser speckle contrast analysis (LASCA): a practice-based approach” 2017), hereinafter “Postnikov.”
Regarding claim 2, Ghijsen discloses algorithms to process received images and generate the hemodynamic images to the display (raw data/images are processed using a processor, P.2, ¶6 – P.3, ¶3; raw data/images are processed into images of tissue blood flow, SFI, speckle contrast, oxy-/deoxyhemoglobin concentration, Hb)2 and HHb, and tissue metabolic rate of oxygen consumption, tMRO2, P.1, ¶1, P.1, ¶6 – P.2, ¶4, P.2, ¶6 – P.3, ¶3, P.4, ¶2-12, Figs. 4-6).
However, Ghijsen in further view of Di Sieno does not appear to teach algorithms incorporating parallel computation and convolution functions to process received images.
However, in the same field of endeavor of optical imaging of tissue, Postnikov teaches algorithms incorporating parallel computation and convolution functions to process received images (laser speckle contrast analysis of acquired optical images, P.1, ¶1 – P.2, ¶1; MATLAB function realizing the sliding filter algorithm determines the speckle contrast output image by computing in a parallel function: 1) the square of the convolution of a matrix window and the acquired image and 2) the convolution of the squared acquired image with a matrix window, P.3, ¶6 – P.4, ¶4, Listing 2).
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 Postnikov’s known technique of computing the speckle contrast output image from the acquired optical images using a parallel computation of convolution functions to Ghijsen in further view of Di Sieno’s known apparatus for computing the speckle contrast output image from the acquired optical images to achieve the predictable result that the sliding filter algorithm for processing speckle contrast does not reduce the size of the output processed image with respect to the original image (see, e.g., Postnikov, P.3, ¶6) and/or provides for a relatively “pure/correlated” vascular picture while also having a relatively fast computation time compared to alternative algorithms (see, e.g., Postnikov, Table 1).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ghijsen in further view of Di Sieno as in claim 1 above, and further in view of Ulku et al. (“A 512 x 512 SPAD image sensor with integrated gating for widefield FLIM” 2019), hereinafter “Ulku.”
Regarding claim 5, Ghijsen in further view of Di Sieno does not appear to teach the time-gated camera has a spatial resolution of at least 256 × 512 single-photon-counting pixels.
However, in the same field of endeavor of optical imaging of tissue, Ulku teaches the time-gated camera has a spatial resolution of at least 256 × 512 single-photon-counting pixels (a 512 x 512 pixels time-gated binary single photon avalanche diode, SPAD, image sensor, P.1, ¶1, P.1, ¶4, P.10, ¶3).
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 Ulku’s known technique of performing time-resolved laser imaging using an optical imaging device comprising a time-gated, high-speed, large-format SPAD imaging sensor to Ghijsen in further view of Di Sieno’s known apparatus for performing multiwavelength, time-resolved laser speckle contrast imaging using a time-gated camera to achieve the predictable result that using the SPAD imaging sensor of Ulku increases the imaging field of view and provides a high signal-to-noise ratio. See, e.g., Ulku, P.10, ¶3.
Claim 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ghijsen in further view of Di Sieno as in claim 1 above, and further in view of Mazdeyasna et al. (“Noninvasive noncontact 3D optical imaging of blood flow distributions in animals and humans” 2018), hereinafter “Mazdeyasna.”
Regarding claim 6, Ghijsen in further view of Di Sieno does not appear to teach at least one filter within the camera path to minimize an impact of ambient light on a detection NIR spectra.
However, in the same field of endeavor of optical imaging of tissue, Mazdeyasna teaches at least one filter within the camera path to minimize an impact of ambient light on a detection NIR spectra (a long-pass filter installed in front of the camera lens to reduce the impact of the ambient light, P.442, ¶5, Fig. 1).
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 Mazdeyasna’s known technique of placing a long-pass filter in the camera path to reduce the impact of ambient light to Ghijsen in further view of Di Sieno’s known apparatus for performing multiwavelength, time-resolved laser speckle contrast imaging using a time-gated camera and a filter in the time-gated camera path to achieve the predictable result that providing a laser speckle contrast imaging camera away from the tissue surface and exposed to ambient light improves the flexibility of selecting small and large ROIs for blood flow imaging in small animal and large human tissues. See, e.g., Mazdeyasana, P.442, ¶4.
Regarding claim 7, Ghijsen discloses further comprising a polarizer across the camera path to reduce an influence of source reflections directly from a tissue surface (polarizer across the camera path to suppress specular reflections, P.2, ¶5, Fig. 1).
However, Ghijsen does not appear to disclose the at least two laser sources are pulsed laser sources, and the camera is a time-gated camera.
However, in the same field of endeavor of optical imaging of tissue, Di Sieno teaches the at least two laser sources are pulsed laser sources (two high power laser heads operating at 670 nm and 830 nm, respectively, pulsed at 40 MHz, 2.1 Setup; laser pulses have a duration of tens/hundreds of picoseconds, 1. Introduction), and the camera is a time-gated camera (SiPM detector, 1. Introduction, 2.1 Setup; time-gating of the SiPM detector, 2.3.3. nEUROPt protocol, 3.3 nEUROPt protocol, 3.4 In-vivo measurements).
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 Di Sieno’s known technique of performing time-domain functional near-infrared spectroscopy imaging using an optical imaging device comprising two simultaneously activated laser sources of different NIR wavelengths and a time-gated camera to Ghijsen’s known apparatus for multiwavelength laser speckle contrast imaging using an optical imaging device comprising two laser sources and a camera to achieve the predictable result that using a probe-hosted large area silicon photomultiplier detector coupled to high-throughput timing electronics results in superior signal-to-noise ratio in near-infrared spectroscopy imaging. See, e.g., Di Sieno, Abstract and 1.Introduction.
However, Ghijsen in further view of Di Sieno does not appear to teach a polarizer across the laser source path.
However, in the same field of endeavor of optical imaging of tissue, Mazdeyasana teaches at least two polarizers across each of the laser source path and the camera path to reduce an influence of source reflections directly from a tissue surface (a pair of polarizers are placed such that one crosses the laser source path and the other one crosses the camera path to reduce the source reflection from the tissue surface P.442, ¶5, Fig. 1).
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 Mazdeyasna’s known technique of placing a long-pass filter in the camera path to reduce the impact of ambient light to Ghijsen in further view of Di Sieno’s known apparatus for performing multiwavelength, time-resolved laser speckle contrast imaging using a time-gated camera and a filter in the time-gated camera path to achieve the predictable result that providing a laser speckle contrast imaging camera away from the tissue surface improves the flexibility of selecting small and large ROIs for blood flow imaging in small animal and large human tissues. See, e.g., Mazdeyasana, P.442, ¶4.
Regarding claim 8, Di Sieno further teaches the time-gated camera (SiPM detector, 1. Introduction, 2.1 Setup; time-gating of the SiPM detector, 2.3.3. nEUROPt protocol, 3.3 nEUROPt protocol, 3.4 In-vivo measurements).
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 Di Sieno’s known technique of performing time-domain functional near-infrared spectroscopy imaging using an optical imaging device comprising two simultaneously activated laser sources of different NIR wavelengths and a time-gated camera to Ghijsen’s known apparatus for multiwavelength laser speckle contrast imaging using an optical imaging device comprising two laser sources and a camera to achieve the predictable result that using a probe-hosted large area silicon photomultiplier detector coupled to high-throughput timing electronics results in superior signal-to-noise ratio in near-infrared spectroscopy imaging. See, e.g., Di Sieno, Abstract and 1.Introduction.
However, Ghijsen in further view of Di Sieno does not appear to teach at least one zoom lens attached to the camera to adjust the region-of-interest (ROI)/field-of-view (FOV).
However, in the same field of endeavor of optical imaging of tissue, Mazdeyasana teaches at least one zoom lens attached to the camera to adjust the region-of-interest (ROI)/field-of-view (FOV) (a zoom lens is connected to the camera providing the ability to adjust the size of the field of view, FOV, and region of interest, ROI, P.442, ¶5, Fig. 1).
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 Mazdeyasna’s known technique of placing a long-pass filter in the camera path to reduce the impact of ambient light to Ghijsen in further view of Di Sieno’s known apparatus for performing multiwavelength, time-resolved laser speckle contrast imaging using a time-gated camera and a filter in the time-gated camera path to achieve the predictable result that providing a laser speckle contrast imaging camera away from the tissue surface improves the flexibility of selecting small and large ROIs for blood flow imaging in small animal and large human tissues. See, e.g., Mazdeyasana, P.442, ¶4.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Yu et al. (U.S. Patent No. 9,861,319) discloses a system for noncontact, multiwavelength, laser speckle contrast imaging of tissue blood flow, tissue blood oxygenation, and metabolic rate of tissue oxygen consumption in a subject.
Yodh et al. (U.S. Patent No. 8,082,015) discloses a system for noncontact, multiwavelength, laser speckle contrast imaging of tissue blood flow, tissue blood oxygenation, and metabolic rate of tissue oxygen consumption in a subject.
Sutin et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0070830) discloses a system for noncontact, multiwavelength, time-resolved, laser speckle contrast imaging of tissue blood flow, tissue blood oxygenation, and metabolic rate of tissue oxygen consumption in a subject.
Durduran et al. (U.S. Patent No. 10,962,414) discloses a system for noncontact, multiwavelength, time-resolved, laser speckle contrast imaging of tissue blood flow, and tissue blood oxygenation.
Uhring et al. (“200 ps FWHM and 100 MHz repetition rate ultrafast gated camera for optical medical functional imaging” 2012), discloses a system for noncontact, multiwavelength, time-resolved, laser speckle contrast imaging using a time-gated camera and a plurality of pulsed laser sources.
Di Sieno et al. (“First in-vivo diffuse optics application of a time-domain multiwavelength wearable optode” April 2022) discloses a system for multiwavelength, time-resolved, laser speckle contrast imaging using a time-gated camera and a plurality of simultaneously activated pulsed laser sources.
Behera et al. (“Large area SiPM and high throughput timing electronics: toward new generation time-domain instruments” 2019) discloses a system for multiwavelength, time-resolved, laser speckle contrast imaging using a time-gated camera and a plurality of simultaneously activated pulsed laser sources.
Orive-Miguel et al. (“Real-time dual-wavelength time-resolved diffuse optical tomography system for functional brain imaging based on probe-hosted silicon photomultipliers” 2020) discloses a system for multiwavelength, time-resolved, laser speckle contrast imaging using a time-gated camera and a plurality of simultaneously activated pulsed laser sources.
Tosi et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2022/0069152) discloses a system for time-resolved single-photon counting detection using a time-gated camera.
Shang et al. (“Clinical applications of near-infrared diffuse correlation spectroscopy and tomography for tissue blood flow monitoring and imaging” 2017) discloses systems for noncontact, multiwavelength, time-resolved, laser speckle contrast imaging of tissue blood flow, and tissue blood oxygenation.
Ren et al. (“Portable optical tissue flow oximeter based on diffuse correlation spectroscopy” 2009) discloses a system for noncontact, multiwavelength, time-resolved, laser speckle contrast imaging of tissue blood flow, and tissue blood oxygenation.
Di Sieno et al. (“A versatile setup for time-resolved functional near infrared spectroscopy based on fast-gated single-photon avalanche diode and on four-wave mixing laser” 2019) discloses a system for multiwavelength, time-resolved, laser speckle contrast imaging using a time-gated camera and a plurality of simultaneously activated wavelengths.
Di Sieno et al. (“Functional near-infrared spectroscopy at small source-detector distance by means of high dynamic-range fast-gated SPAD acquistiions: First in-vivo measurements” 2013) discloses a system for multiwavelength, time-resolved, laser speckle contrast imaging using a time-gated camera and a plurality of simultaneously activated wavelengths.
Dempsey et al. (“Whole-head functional brain imaging of neonates at cot-side using time-resovled diffuse optical tomography” 2015) discloses a system for multiwavelength, time-resolved, laser speckle contrast imaging using a time-gated camera and a plurality of simultaneously activated wavelengths.
Wang et al. (“Dual-wavelength laser speckle imaging to simultaneously access blood flow, blood volume, and oxygenation using a color CCD camera” 2013) discloses a system for multiwavelength, time-resolved, laser speckle contrast imaging using a camera and two simultaneously activated laser sources for laser speckle contrast imaging of tissue blood flow and tissue blood oxygenation.
Qin et al. (“Fast synchronized dual-wavelength laser speckle imaging system for monitoring hemodynamic changes in a stroke mouse model” 2012) discloses a system for multiwavelength, time-resolved, laser speckle contrast imaging using a camera and two simultaneously activated laser sources for laser speckle contrast imaging of tissue blood flow and tissue blood oxygenation.
Wabnitz et al. (“Performance assessment of time-domain optical brain imagers, part 1: basic instrumental performance protocol” 2014) discloses systems for multiwavelength, time-resolved, laser speckle contrast imaging using a camera and two simultaneously activated laser sources for laser speckle contrast imaging of tissue blood flow and tissue blood oxygenation.
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 Johnathan Maynard whose telephone number is (571)272-7977. The examiner can normally be reached 10 AM - 6 PM.
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, Keith Raymond can be reached at 571-270-1790. 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.
/J.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3798
/KEITH M RAYMOND/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3798