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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 4/8/26 has been entered.
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 Claims 10-22 are withdrawn from consideration.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
112(a) Rejections
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks and Amended Claim Set, filed 4/8/26, with respect to claims 1-9 have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of the deletion of the unsupported claim language. The rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) of claims 1-9 has been withdrawn.
103 Rejections
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 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, the Final Rejection mailed 12/18/25, for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claims 1, 3, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ghijsen in further view of Uhring. Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ghijsen in further view of Uhring in further view of Postnikov. Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ghijsen in further view of Uhring in further view of Ulku. Claims 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ghijsen in further view of Uhring in further view of Mazdeyasna.
In arguendo, to promote compact prosecution, the Office provides the following response to various arguments by the Applicant that touch upon teachings of the Ghijsen, Postnikov, Ulku, and Mazdeyasna references in the Remarks filed 4/8/26 (“Remarks 4/8/26”) and the Uhring reference in the Remarks filed 10/27/25 (“Remarks 10/27/25”).
Throughout Remarks 4/8/26, Applicant points to alleged features of the claimed system as summarized in Table 1 on pages 8 and 22. However, 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., “Time-gated SPAD camera detection,” “Dye-free imaging,” “Real-time image processing,” “Diffuse tissue imaging depth of 10 mm,” and “2D outputs of depth-resolved…”) 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). Therefore, Applicant’s arguments regarding these features are not persuasive as they are not part of the claimed invention.
Regarding the Ghijsen reference, in Remarks 4/8/26 at 9, Applicant argues that Ghijsen alone does not teach various alleged features. First, in response to Applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In arguendo:
1a) Applicant asserts that Ghijsen alone does not teach pulsed illumination. Ghijsen alone is not relied upon to teach pulsed illumination.
1b) Applicant asserts that Ghijsen alone does not teach time-of-flight information. 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., “time-of-flight information”) 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).
2) Applicant asserts that Ghijsen alone does not teach time-domain gating. Ghijsen alone is not relied upon to teach time-domain gating.
3) Applicant asserts that Ghijsen alone does not teach source-detector synchronization. Ghijsen alone is not relied upon to teach source-detector synchronization.
4) Applicant asserts that Ghijsen alone does not teach sufficient depth resolution. As discussed above, 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., “Diffuse tissue imaging depth of 10 mm”) 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).
5) Applicant asserts that Ghijsen alone does not teach depth-resolved 2D flow, StO2, and TMRO2. As discussed above, 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., “depth-resolved 2D…”) 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 Uhring reference, in Remarks 10/27/25 at P.10-11, Applicant makes various characterizations of alleged disadvantages of Uhring that are unsupported by evidence. There is no indication in the record that Uhring has any of the alleged disadvantages. As per MPEP 716.01(c) "[t]he arguments of counsel cannot take the place of evidence in the record." In re Schulze, 346 F. 2d 600, 602, 145 USPQ 716, 718 (CCPA 1965)." In any event, as the Federal Circuit has explained: "The fact that the motivating benefit comes at the expense of another benefit, however, should not nullify its use as a basis to modify the disclosure of one reference with the teachings of another. Instead, the benefits, both lost and gained, should be weighed against one another." Winner Int 'l Royalty Corp. v. Wang, 202 F.3d 1340, 1349 n.8 (Fed. Cir. 2000). In this case, even if combining Mazdeyasana's teachings with those of Ghijsen in further view of Di Sieno (or Ghijsen in further view of Uhring in the NF) effected some negative consequences, as the Applicant contends, the evidence of record does not indicate that such disadvantages would undermine the reasons to combine the references' teachings.
Further, the Applicant alleges advantages of the claimed invention that differ from the alleged disadvantages in Uhring. 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., “Diffuse tissue imaging depth of 10 mm”) 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). Therefore, Applicant’s arguments regarding these features are not persuasive as they are not part of the claimed invention.
Regarding the Uhring reference, in Remarks 10/27/25 at P.11, Applicant asserts that Uhring alone does not various alleged features. First, in response to Applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In arguendo:
1) Applicant asserts that Uhring alone does not teach speckle analysis. Uhring alone is not relied upon to teach speckle analysis. In addition, Uhring explictly discloses that its optical imaging apparatus overcomes the limitations of continuous-wave light sources used in Laser Speckle Contrast Imaging for tomographic imaging and quantification of tissue blood flow, tissue blood oxygen saturation, and oxygen metabolic consumption. See Uhring, P.1, ¶2 - P.2, ¶4.
2) Applicant asserts that Uhring alone does not teach a SPAD array and real-time gated speckle capture. 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., “SPAD array” and “real-time gated speckle capture”) 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).
3) Applicant asserts that Uhring alone does not teach correlation or contrast processing, particularly time-resolved speckle contrast computation. 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., “correlation or contrast processing”) 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). In so far as the claim recites “time-resolved laser speckle contrast imaging,” as discussed above, Uhring alone is not relied upon to teach speckle analysis. In addition, Uhring explictly discloses that its optical imaging apparatus overcomes the limitations of, is an improvement upon, and is a replacement for continuous-wave light sources used in Laser Speckle Contrast Imaging for tomographic imaging and quantification of tissue blood flow, tissue blood oxygen saturation, and oxygen metabolic consumption. See Uhring at P.1, ¶2 - P.2, ¶4.
4) Applicant asserts that Uhring alone does not teach “wide-field flow mapping” particularly “wide-field, depth-resolved flow and oxygenation imaging.” 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., “depth-resolved”) 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). In so far as the claim recites “wide-field illumination” Uhring alone is not relied upon to teach wide-field illumination. In addition, Uhring explictly discloses that the optical imaging employs wide-field illumination, e.g., “contactless instrumentation, with the illumination of the whole body surface in front of the region of interest, and the detection of scattered outcoming photons with a time-gated intensified CCD camera.” Uhring at P.2, ¶2. In fact, Applicant admits that Uhring employs wide-field illumination on P.12 of the Remarks 10/27/25.
Regarding the combination of the Ghijsen and Uhring references, in Remarks 10/27/25 at P.12:
1) Applicant argues that Ghijsen and Uhring are incompatible regimes. As discussed above, Uhring explictly discloses that its optical imaging apparatus overcomes the limitations of, is an improvement upon, and is a replacement for continuous-wave light sources used in Laser Speckle Contrast Imaging for tomographic imaging and quantification of tissue blood flow, tissue blood oxygen saturation, and oxygen metabolic consumption. See Uhring at P.1, ¶2 - P.2, ¶4. There is no evidence of incompatibility, as Uhring explictly discloses its compatibility with Laser Speckle Contrast Imaging analysis typically performed using continuous-wave light sources as in Ghijsen.
2) Applicant argues that “[t]here is no motivation or teaching in either reference to apply sub-nanosecond gating to speckle imaging for depth-specific flow mapping.” Contrary to Applicant’s contention a motivation was provided on P.5 of the Non-Final Rejection mailed 8/27/25 (“NF”) regarding the explicit disclosure in Uhring that its optical imaging apparatus overcomes the limitations of, is an improvement upon, and is a replacement for continuous-wave light sources used in Laser Speckle Contrast Imaging for tomographic imaging and quantification of tissue blood flow, tissue blood oxygen saturation, and oxygen metabolic consumption. See Uhring at P.1, ¶2 - P.2, ¶4. Applicant fails to address the cited motivation.
3) Applicant argues that “[i]ntegration would require fundamentally redesigning… which goes beyond routine optimization.” Contrary to Applicant’s contention, Uhring explictly discloses that its optical imaging apparatus overcomes the limitations of, is an improvement upon, and is a replacement for continuous-wave light sources used in Laser Speckle Contrast Imaging for tomographic imaging and quantification of tissue blood flow, tissue blood oxygen saturation, and oxygen metabolic consumption. See Uhring at P.1, ¶2 - P.2, ¶4. Thus, Ghijsen in further view of Uhring provides an explicit roadmap of the manner by which the alleged optical and detection architecture is modified. Applicant fails to address the cited motivation. Moreover, the rejection makes no reliance on routine optimization and Applicant’s assertion thereof is irrelevant.
4) Applicant argues that there is no reasonable expectation of success. Contrary to Applicant’s contention, Uhring explictly discloses that its optical imaging apparatus overcomes the limitations of, is an improvement upon, and is a replacement for continuous-wave light sources used in Laser Speckle Contrast Imaging for tomographic imaging and quantification of tissue blood flow, tissue blood oxygen saturation, and oxygen metabolic consumption. See Uhring at P.1, ¶2 - P.2, ¶4. Thus, Ghijsen in further view of Uhring provides an explicit expectation of success. Applicant fails to address the cited motivation.
Regarding the Postnikov reference, in Remarks 4/8/26 at 16, Applicant argues that Postnikov alone does not teach various alleged features. First, in response to Applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In arguendo:
1a) Applicant argues that Postnikov alone “does not teach time-resolved, multi-wavelength speckle imaging.” Postnikov alone is not relied upon to teach that the optical images are acquired using time-resolved, multi-wavelength speckle imaging. Rather, Postnikov is relied upon to teach a known technique of computing the speckle contrast output image from acquired optical images using a parallel computation of convolution functions. It is the combination of Ghijsen in further view of Di Sieno in further view of Postnikov (or Ghijsen in further view of Uhring in further view of Postnikov in the NF) that teaches the time-resolved, multi-wavelength apparatus by which the optical images are acquired. Applicant’s arguments are improper and not persuasive.
1b) Applicant argues that Postnikov alone “does not teach… processing of time-gated image stacks for depth-resolved analysis.” 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., “time-gated image stacks for depth-resolved analysis”) 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). In so far as the claim recites “a time-gated camera… for data collection” Postnikov alone is not relied upon to teach that the optical images are acquired as time-gated camera data collection. Rather, Postnikov is relied upon to teach a known technique of computing the speckle contrast output image from acquired optical images using a parallel computation of convolution functions. It is the combination of Ghijsen in further view of Di Sieno in further view of Postnikov (or Ghijsen in further view of Uhring in further view of Postnikov in the NF) that teaches the time-gated camera data collection. Applicant’s arguments are improper and not persuasive.
2a) Applicant argues that Postnikov alone “does not disclose or suggest (1) multi-gated, time-resolved image stacks.” 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., “multi-gated, time-resolved image stacks”) 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). In so far as the claim recites “time-resolved laser speckle contrast imaging” and “a time-gated camera… for data collection” Postnikov alone is not relied upon to teach that the optical images are acquired as a time-gated, time-resolved data collection. Rather, Postnikov is relied upon to teach a known technique of computing the speckle contrast output image from acquired optical images using a parallel computation of convolution functions. It is the combination of Ghijsen in further view of Di Sieno in further view of Postnikov (or Ghijsen in further view of Uhring in further view of Postnikov in the NF) that teaches that the optical images are acquired as a time-gated, time-resolved data collection. Applicant’s arguments are improper and not persuasive.
2b) Applicant argues that Postinokov alone “does not disclose or suggest… parallel computation across such [multi-gated, time-resolved image stacks].” Again, in so far as the claim recites “time-resolved laser speckle contrast imaging” and “a time-gated camera… for data collection” Postnikov alone is not relied upon to teach that the optical images are acquired as a time-gated, time-resolved data collection. Rather, Postnikov is relied upon to teach a known technique of computing the speckle contrast output image from acquired optical images using a parallel computation of convolution functions. It is the combination of Ghijsen in further view of Di Sieno in further view of Postnikov (or Ghijsen in further view of Uhring in further view of Postnikov in the NF) that teaches that the optical images are acquired as a time-gated, time-resolved data collection. Applicant’s arguments are improper and not persuasive.
2c) Applicant argues that Postinokov alone “does not disclose or suggest… integration of convolution processing with time-gated imaging for depth discrimination.” 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., “depth discrimination”) 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). In so far as the claim recites “a time-gated camera… for data collection” Postnikov alone is not relied upon to teach that the optical images are acquired as time-gated camera data collection. Rather, Postnikov is relied upon to teach a known technique of computing the speckle contrast output image from acquired optical images using a parallel computation of convolution functions. It is the combination of Ghijsen in further view of Di Sieno in further view of Postnikov (or Ghijsen in further view of Uhring in further view of Postnikov in the NF) that teaches the time-gated camera data collection. Applicant’s arguments are improper and not persuasive.
Regarding the Ulku reference, in Remarks 4/8/26 at 17-18, Applicant argues that Ulku alone does not teach “time-resolved speckle contrast imaging.” First, in response to Applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Ulku is not relied upon to teach “time-resolved speckle contrast imaging.” Rather, Ulku is relied upon to teach a time-gated camera for time-resolved laser imaging having a spatial resolution of 512 x 512 single-photon-counting pixels. It is the combination of Ghijsen in further view of Di Sieno in further view of Ulku (or Ghijsen in further view of Uhring in further view of Ulku in the NF) that teaches the time-gated camera data collection. Applicant’s arguments are improper and not persuasive.
Second, in response to Applicant's implied argument that Ulku is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, Ulku is in the same field of endeavor of optical imaging of tissue. Applicant provides no arguments or evidence to challenge the finding that Ulku is in the same field of endeavor of optical imaging.
Third, Applicant argues that “Ulku discloses only detector hardware, not its use in an MTR-LSCI system, and adapting it would require fundamental modifications.” Applicant provides no evidence in support of the bare conclusory assertion that a PHOSITA would not find obvious to apply Ulku’s time-gated camera sensor to the time-gated camera sensor as taught by Ghijsen in further view of Di Sieno (or Ghijsen in further view of Uhring in the NF). As stated in the rejection of record and the NF, applying Ulku’s time-gated camera sensor achieves the predictable result of increasing the imaging field of view and providing a high signal-to-noise ratio. See, e.g., Ulku, P.10, ¶3. Applicant fails to address the cited motivation. In addition, as stated in MPEP 2141 II. C.:
"A person of ordinary skill in the art is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton."KSR, 550 U.S. at 421, 82 USPQ2d at 1397. "[I]n many cases a person of ordinary skill will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle."Id. at 420, 82 USPQ2d at 1397. Office personnel may also take into account "the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ."Id. at 418, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.
Applicant provides no arguments or evidence that a PHOSITA having ordinary creativity would not follow the suggestion of the references to apply the time-gated camera sensor as taught by Ulku to the time-gated camera sensor as taught by Ghijsen in further view of Di Sieno (or Ghijsen in further view of Uhring in the NF) particularly in light of the explicit advantages set forth in Ulku.
Regarding the Mazdeyasna reference, in Remarks 4/8/26 at 19-20, Applicant argues that Mazedyasna alone does not teach a “multi-wavelength, pulsed, time-gated, wide-field MTR-LSCI system.” First, in response to Applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Mazdeyasna is not relied upon to teach a “multi-wavelength, pulsed, time-gated, wide-field MTR-LSCI system.” Rather, Mazdeyasna is relied upon to teach placing a long-pass filter in front of the camera to reduce the impact of ambient light. It is the combination of Ghijsen in further view of Di Sieno in further view of Mazdeyasna (or Ghijsen in further view of Uhring in further view of Mazdeyasna in the NF) that teaches a “multi-wavelength, pulsed, time-gated, wide-field MTR-LSCI system.” Applicant’s arguments are improper and not persuasive.
Second, in response to Applicant's implied argument that Mazdeyansa is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, Mazdeyasna is in the same field of endeavor of optical imaging of tissue. Applicant provides no arguments or evidence to challenge the finding that Mazdeyasna is in the same field of endeavor of optical imaging.
Third, Applicant provides no evidence in support of the bare conclusory assertion that a PHOSITA would not find obvious to apply Mazdeyana’s known technique of placing a long-pass filter in front of the camera to reduce the impact of ambient light to the known apparatus for performing multiwavelength, time-resolved laser speckle contrast imaging using a time-gated camera as taught by Ghijsen in further view of Di Sieno (or Ghijsen in further view of Uhring in the NF). As stated in the rejection of record and the NF, applying a filter in front of the camera as in Mazdeyasna to reduce the impact of ambient light achieves 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. Applicant fails to address the cited motivation. In addition, as stated in MPEP 2141 II. C.:
"A person of ordinary skill in the art is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton."KSR, 550 U.S. at 421, 82 USPQ2d at 1397. "[I]n many cases a person of ordinary skill will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle."Id. at 420, 82 USPQ2d at 1397. Office personnel may also take into account "the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ."Id. at 418, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.
Applicant provides no arguments or evidence that a PHOSITA having ordinary creativity would not follow the suggestion of the references to apply a filter in front of a camera to reduce the impact of ambient light when performing non-contact imaging as taught by Ghijsen in further view of Di Sieno (or Ghijsen in further view of Uhring in the NF) particularly in light of the explicit advantages set forth in Mazdeyasana.
Applicant further argues in Remarks 4/8/26 at 20, that the recited filter, polarizers, and lenses are specially designed for multi-wavelength wide field speckle imaging. 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., specialized filter designs) 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). Therefore, Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
In arguendo, Applicant provides no support for Applicant’s conclusory allegations that the claimed filter has special, i.e., critical features, that would not be obvious to a PHOSITA from the teaching of a long-pass filter that reduces the impact of the ambient light. Applicant’s specification filed 9/22/23 at paragraph [0078] states that the filter is “[a] long-pass filter (>750 nm, FEL0750, Thorlabs).” This is a generic filter that is selected off the shelf. Further, paragraph [0015] states that the NIR wavelengths used for the light sources are 785 nm and 830 nm and the claim and paragraph [0016] recites a NIR range of 600-1100 nm. Therefore, the design consideration is that the selected filter passes at least part of the NIR range such that the light from the light sources passes through the filter while ambient light does not pass through the filter. Similar to Applicant’s claimed invention, Mazdeyasana’s long-pass filter is selected such that it passes at least part of the NIR range from the NIR light source while ambient light does not pass through the filter. See, e.g., Mazdeyasana at P.442, ¶5. Thus, both Mazdeyasna’s filter and the filter of the claimed invention share the same design consideration.
Further, Applicant similarly provides no support for Applicant’s conclusory allegations that the claimed polarizers have special, i.e., critical features, that would not be obvious to a PHOSITA from the teaching of a pair of polarizers to reduce the source reflection from the tissue surface. Applicant’s specification filed 9/22/23 at paragraph [0078] states that the pair of polarizers are “(LPNIRE050-B and LPNIRE200-B, Thorlabs) were added crossing the source and detection paths to reduce the influence of source reflections directly from the tissue surface.” These are generic polarizers that are selected off the shelf. Further, paragraph [0015] states that the NIR wavelengths used for the light sources are 785 nm and 830 nm and the claim and paragraph [0016] recites a NIR range of 600-1100 nm. Therefore, the design consideration is that the pair of polarizers pass light from the NIR light sources that are not source reflections directly from the tissue surface. Similar to Applicant’s claimed invention, Mazdeyasana’s pair of polarizers is selected such that it passes the NIR light sources that are not source reflections directly from the tissue surface. See, e.g., Mazdeyasana at P.442, ¶5. Thus, both Mazdeyasna’s pair of polarizers and the polarizers of the claimed invention share the same design consideration.
Furthermore, Applicant similarly provides no support for Applicant’s conclusory allegation that the claimed zoom lens has special, i.e., critical features, that would not be obvious to a PHOSITA from the teaching of a zoom lens to adjust the field of view and ROI. Applicant’s specification filed 9/22/23 at paragraph [0078] states that that “[a] zoom lens (MLM3X-MP, Computar) was coupled to the camera for adjusting the ROI size. The F/# of the zoom lens was set at 11.” This is a generic zoom lens that is selected off the shelf with adjustable ROI and FOV. Further, paragraph [0015] states that the NIR wavelengths used for the light sources are 785 nm and 830 nm and the claim and paragraph [0016] recites a NIR range of 600-1100 nm. Therefore, the design consideration is that the zoom lens allows for adjusting the FOV/ROI. Similar to Applicant’s claimed invention, Mazdeyasana’s zoom lens provides allows adjusting the FOV/ROI. See, e.g., Mazdeyasana at P.442, ¶5. Thus, both Mazdeyasna’s zoom lens and the zoom lens of the claimed invention share the same design consideration.
Additionally, Applicant’s speculates without evidence that the claimed filter must be compatible with the multiple NIR wavelengths used for physiological parameter extraction. As discussed above, both Mazdeyasna’s filter and the filter of the claimed invention share the same design consideration that the selected filter passes at least part of the NIR range such that the light from the light sources passes through the filter while ambient light does not pass through the filter. There is no indication in Mazdeyasana that the filter does not pass at least part of the NIR range. As per MPEP 716.01(c) "[t]he arguments of counsel cannot take the place of evidence in the record." In re Schulze, 346 F. 2d 600, 602, 145 USPQ 716, 718 (CCPA 1965)."
In addition, Applicant’s speculates without evidence that the claimed filter must “reduce ambient light without distorting speckle patterns or attenuating relevant wavelength-dependent signals across the field of view.” There is no support in the originally filed disclosure for such alleged features. Further, 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., no distortion or attenuation) 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). In arguendo, Mazdeyasana teaches the filter reduces the impact of the ambient light and provides no indication that it distorts the speckle patterns or attenuates relevant NIR wavelength signals across the field of view captured by the speckle contrast diffuse correlation tomography system. As per MPEP 716.01(c) "[t]he arguments of counsel cannot take the place of evidence in the record." In re Schulze, 346 F. 2d 600, 602, 145 USPQ 716, 718 (CCPA 1965)."
In any event, as the Federal Circuit has explained: "The fact that the motivating benefit comes at the expense of another benefit, however, should not nullify its use as a basis to modify the disclosure of one reference with the teachings of another. Instead, the benefits, both lost and gained, should be weighed against one another." Winner Int 'l Royalty Corp. v. Wang, 202 F.3d 1340, 1349 n.8 (Fed. Cir. 2000). In this case, even if combining Mazdeyasana's teachings with those of Ghijsen in further view of Di Sieno (or Ghijsen in further view of Uhring in the NF) effected some negative consequences, as the Applicant contends, the evidence of record does not indicate that such disadvantages would undermine the reasons to combine the references' teachings.
Applicant further argues in Remarks 4/8/26 at 20-21, that Mazdeyasana alone does not teach integrating the filter, polarizers, and zoom lens into the claimed invention, i.e., that Mazdeyasana alone must teach all the features of the claim. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Therefore, Applicant’s argument is improper and unpersuasive. Further, in arguendo, as discussed above, Mazdeyasana’s filter, polarizers, and zoom lens share the same design considerations as the claimed invention and there is no indication in Mazdeyasana that the filter, polarizes, and zoom lens undermine the reasons to combine the references. Applicant provides no evidence to support the Applicant’s allegations. Furthermore, Applicant fails to address the motivation to combine provided from Mazdeyasana, P.442, ¶4. Therefore, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
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 § 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, 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 Uhring et al. (“200 ps FWHM and 100 MHz repetition rate ultrafast gated camera for optical medical functional imaging” 2012), hereinafter “Uhring.”
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, a time-gated camera, and a controller to synchronize the time-gated camera and the at least two pulsed laser sources for data collection.
However, in the same field of endeavor of optical imaging of tissue, Uhring teaches a system for time-resolved laser speckle contrast imaging (an optical imaging device for time-resolved, spectroscopic diffuse optical tomography, P.1, ¶1; device may be used for laser speckle contrast imaging, P.1, ¶2), 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 (optical imaging device comprises four pulsed laser diodes in picosecond width at NIR range of 650-900 nm for illuminating human tissue, P.1, ¶1, P.3, ¶1, P.4, ¶3 – P.5, ¶2, Fig. 3, Table 1);
a time-gated camera (optical imaging device comprises a time-gated camera, P.1, ¶1); and
a controller to synchronize the time-gated camera and the at least two pulsed laser sources for data collection (optical imaging device comprises a sequencer to trigger the time-gated camera and the laser diodes for data collection, P.1, ¶1, P.4, ¶2, P.5, ¶2. P.7, ¶3 – P.8, ¶1, Figs. 3, 6).
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 Uhring’s known technique of performing time-resolved laser speckle contrast imaging using an optical imaging device comprising two or more pulse laser sources, a time-gated camera, and a sequencer to trigger the laser sources and 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 time-gated camera results in an optical imaging apparatus that is robust to optical coefficient variations of superficial layers and/or allows for depth resolved data analysis. See, e.g., Uhring, P.1, ¶2 – P.2, ¶4.
Regarding claim 3, Uhring further teaches the time-gated camera has a gate step resolution of picoseconds (gate of 9 ps, P.1, ¶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 Uhring’s known technique of performing time-resolved laser speckle contrast imaging using an optical imaging device comprising two or more pulse laser sources, a time-gated camera, and a sequencer to trigger the laser sources and 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 time-gated camera results in an optical imaging apparatus that is robust to optical coefficient variations of superficial layers and/or allows for depth resolved data analysis. See, e.g., Uhring, P.1, ¶2 – P.2, ¶4.
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 Uhring 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 Uhring 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 Uhring’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).
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ghijsen in further view of Uhring 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 4, Ghijsen in further view of Uhring does not appear to teach the time-gated camera has a gate width of nanoseconds.
However, in the same field of endeavor of optical imaging of tissue, Ulku teaches the time-gated camera has a gate width of nanoseconds (gate width of 5.75 ns, P.1, ¶1, P.5, ¶3, P.10, ¶3, Fig. 12).
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 Uhring’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.
Regarding claim 5, Ghijsen in further view of Uhring 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 Uhring’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 Uhring 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, Uhring further teaches at least one filter within the time-gated camera path (optical imaging device comprises a time-gated camera, P.1, ¶1; time-gated camera has a filter wheel in the time-gated camera path, P.4, ¶3, Fig. 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 Uhring’s known technique of performing time-resolved laser speckle contrast imaging using an optical imaging device comprising two or more pulse laser sources, a time-gated camera, and a sequencer to trigger the laser sources and 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 time-gated camera results in an optical imaging apparatus that is robust to optical coefficient variations of superficial layers and/or allows for depth resolved data analysis. See, e.g., Uhring, P.1, ¶2 – P.2, ¶4.
However, Ghijsen in further view of Uhring 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 Uhring’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, Uhring teaches the at least two laser sources are pulsed laser sources (optical imaging device comprises four pulsed NIR laser diodes for illuminating human tissue, P.1, ¶1, P.4, ¶3 – P.5, ¶2, Fig. 3, Table 1), and the camera is a time-gated camera (optical imaging device comprises a time-gated camera, P.1, ¶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 Uhring’s known technique of performing time-resolved laser speckle contrast imaging using an optical imaging device comprising two or more pulse laser sources, a time-gated camera, and a sequencer to trigger the laser sources and 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 time-gated camera results in an optical imaging apparatus that is robust to optical coefficient variations of superficial layers and/or allows for depth resolved data analysis. See, e.g., Uhring, P.1, ¶2 – P.2, ¶4.
However, Ghijsen in further view of Uhring 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 Uhring’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, Uhring further teaches the time-gated camera (optical imaging device comprises a time-gated camera, P.1, ¶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 Uhring’s known technique of performing time-resolved laser speckle contrast imaging using an optical imaging device comprising two or more pulse laser sources, a time-gated camera, and a sequencer to trigger the laser sources and 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 time-gated camera results in an optical imaging apparatus that is robust to optical coefficient variations of superficial layers and/or allows for depth resolved data analysis. See, e.g., Uhring, P.2, ¶1-2.
However, Ghijsen in further view of Uhring 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 Uhring’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.
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) 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.
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.
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.
/Johnathan Maynard/Examiner, Art Unit 3798
Prosecution Insights