DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is responsive to communications filed on 10/25/2024. Presently, Claims 1-20 remain pending and are hereinafter examined on the merits.
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 .
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
The following claims are objected to because of the following informalities and should recite:
Claim 17:
line 1-3, “emit the at least quasi-coherent light [...] [[the]]a volume of a brain tissue”.
Claim 18:
line 3-4, “wherein each detector of the plurality of detectors is separated from [[the]]each other
Appropriate correction is required.
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 17-18 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.
Claim 17: recites:
“wherein the light source is positioned to emit quasi-coherent light within a range of angles that subtends at least twenty-five per cent of the volume of a brain tissue of the patient.”
The claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) for lack of written description. The instant specification states the feature but does not proper written description for how the system determines that light penetrates at least 25% of the brain’s volume. The specification and drawings do not provide any specific algorithmic approach or operational steps for how this percentage of 25% volume metric is calculated. Indeed, the specification recites, ¶0135, “the light source is positioned to emit quasi-coherent light within a range of angles that subtends at least twenty-five percent of the volume of a brain tissue of the patient.” However, the Applicant’s specification does not have proper written description for how this is calculated. Specifically, the specification and drawings do not contain any mathematical formulas, algorithms, testing procedures, thresholds, or assumptions to explain how the system or a user would actually calculate or verify that the light beams cover at least 25% of the brain’s volume. Consequently, one of ordinary skill in the art would not deem the instant specification having sufficient detail so that they could understand how the inventor intended to achieve said aforementioned claimed feature. Since the instant specification fails to provide written description for the phrase above in claim 17, the aforementioned claims 17 fail to meet the written description requirement under 35 U.S.C. 112(a). Furthermore, an assertion that could be derived using simulations or test (i.e., prophetic examples) does not demonstrate that the inventor(s) actual did so or had possession of the specific functional relationships and constraints to obviate the lack of written description requirement.
The dependent claims of the above rejected claims are rejected due to their dependency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as failing to set forth the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1:
lines 1-3, its is unclear if the tissue of the patient refers to the tissue of the nasal passage or ear canal. The claim does not provide a distinction between the targeted tissue and the tissue making up the nasal passage or ear canal. For examination purposes, the Examiner assumes they are different. Clarity is needed. The above rejection to claim 1 applies to claim 12 and claim 20 for substantially identical claim limitations recited in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
The dependent claims of the above rejected claims are rejected due to their dependency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 of the subject matter eligibility test (see MPEP 2106.03).
Claims 1-11 are directed to an “system” which describes one of the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter, i.e., a machine.
Claims 12-19 are directed to a “method” which describes one of the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter, i.e., a process.
Claim 20 is directed to an “system” which describes one of the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter, i.e., a machine.
Step 2A of the subject matter eligibility test (see MPEP 2106.04).
Prong One:
Claim 1 recite (“sets forth” or “describes”) the abstract idea of “a mental process” (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2).III.), substantially as follows:
“ determine, based on the speckle contrast signal or a metric derived from the speckle contrast signal, a physiological characteristic of the patient; ”
Claim 12 recite (“sets forth” or “describes”) the abstract idea of “a mental process” (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2).III.), substantially as follows:
“ determining, [...] and based on the speckle contrast signal or a metric derived from the speckle contrast signal, a physiological characteristic of the patient; ”
Claim 20 recite (“sets forth” or “describes”) the abstract idea of “a mental process” (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2).III.), substantially as follows:
“ determine, based on the speckle contrast signal or the metric derived from the speckle contrast signal, an occurrence of a stroke; ”
In claim 1, 12, & 20, the recited determining step can be practically performed in the human mind because a person can review the speckle contrast signal data or determine a derived metric, by mentally comparing the observed values or patterns to known physiological indicators, and form a conclusion regarding the patient’s physiological characteristic or the occurrence of a stroke. This constitutes an evaluation and judgement process capable of being performed mentally, and therefore falls within the category of a mental process under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2).III. There is nothing recited in the claim to suggest an undue level of complexity in in how the determination is done.
Prong Two: Claims 1, 12, & 20 do not include additional elements that integrate the mental process into a practical application.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recites:
(1) additional steps of “a light source configured to emit at least quasi-coherent light to tissue of a patient, the light source configured to emit the at least quasi-coherent light through at least one of a nasal passage or an ear canal of the patient; a detector configured to detect resulting light passing through at least a portion of the tissue and generate an interference pattern image, [...] and processing circuitry configured to: receive the interference pattern image from the detector; generate a speckle contrast signal based on the interference pattern image;”- (claim 1), “positioning a light source to emit at least quasi-coherent light to tissue of a patient through at least one of a nasal passage or an ear canal of the patient; positioning a detector to detect resulting light passing through at least a portion of the tissue; generating, by the detector and based on the resulting light, an interference pattern image, [...] receiving, by processing circuitry, the interference pattern image from the detector; generating, by the processing circuitry, a speckle contrast signal based on the interference pattern image;" (claim 12), “a laser configured to emit at least quasi-coherent light to tissue of a patient, the laser configured to emit the at least quasi-coherent light through a nasal passage of the patient; a detector configured to: detect resulting light passing through at least a portion of the tissue and through an ear canal of the patient; and generate a laser interference pattern image of the tissue, [...] and processing circuitry configured to: receive the laser interference pattern image from the detector; generate a speckle contrast signal or a metric derived from the speckle contrast signal based on the laser interference pattern image;” (claim 20); and
(2) further an additional step of, “wherein the interference pattern image is representative of the portion of the tissue interacting with the quasi-coherent light traveling through at least the nasal passage or the ear canal of the patient,” (claim 1); “wherein the interference pattern image is representative of the portion of the tissue interacting with the quasi-coherent light traveling through at least the nasal passage or the ear canal of the patient;” (claim 12); “wherein the laser interference pattern image is representative of the portion of the tissue interacting with the at least quasi-coherent light traveling through the nasal passage of the patient;” (claim 20)
(3) further an additional step of “output a representation of the physiological characteristic of the patient.” (claim 1), “outputting a representation of the physiological characteristic of the patient.” (claim #), “output a representation of the occurrence of the stroke.” (claim 20),
The steps in (1) represent merely data gathering or pre-solution activities that are necessary for use of the recited judicial exception and are recited at a high level of generality with conventionally used tools (see below Step IIB for further details). Data gathering and mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer do not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application (MPEP 2106.05 (f and g)).
Regarding the processor language written at such a high level of generality of structural limitations, the processor language amounts to a generic computer component with mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer.
The step in (2) represents merely insignificant extra solution activities that are necessary for use of the recited judicial exception and are recited at a high level of generality with conventionally used tools (see below Step IIB for further details). Data gathering and mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer do not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application (MPEP 2106.05 (f and g)).
The step in (3) represents merely notification outputting by a processor as a post-solution activity and is recited at a high level of generality.
Regarding the limitations of claim 1, 12, & 20 directed to the processor language for determining, based on the speckle contrast signal or a metric derived from the speckle contrast signal, a physiological characteristic of the patient, the processor language is merely treated as a generic computer implementation, which falls under mere instructions to apply the abstract idea on a computer and therefore does not place the abstract idea into a practical application that solves a technological solution in a meaningful way or improve the functionality of the technology or generic computer “itself”. Simply, it’s a generic computer implementation of a mental process rather than a meaningful limitation. Regarding the processor language written at such a high level of generality of structural limitations, the processor language amounts to a generic computer component with mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer.
As a whole, the additional elements merely serve to gather and feed information to the abstract idea and to output a notification based on the abstract idea, while generically implementing it on conventionally used tools. There is no practical application because the abstract idea is not applied, relied on, or used in a meaningful way. No improvement to the technology is evident, and the estimated imaging information is not outputted in any way such that a practical benefit is realized. Therefore, the additional elements, alone or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Further, there is no evidence of record that would support the assertion that this step is an improvement to a computer or technological solution to a technological problem. Ultimately, the Applicant’s describe improvement in the process of using optical techniques, but this is not an improvement in the function of a computer or other technology (See MPEP 2106.05(a)(ii); “the court determined that the claimed user interface simply provided a trader with more information to facilitate market trades, which improved the business process of market trading but did not improve computers or technology”; See MPEP 2106.04(d)(1); 2106.05(a); and 2106.05(f)). The claims are directed to the abstract idea. Also, there does not appear to be any particular structure or machine, treatment or prophylaxis, transformation, or any other meaningful application that would render the claim eligible at step 2A, prong 2.
Step 2B of the subject matter eligibility test (see MPEP 2106.05).
Claims 1, 12, & 20 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the claims recite additional steps of a light source configured to emit a quasi-coherent light to tissue of a patient, a detector configured to detect the resulting light passing though at least a portion of the tissue, and generate an inference pattern image; processing circuitry configured to receive the inference pattern image from the detector and generate a speckle contrast signal based on the interference pattern image. These steps represents mere data gathering, data outputting or pre/post/extra-solution activities that are necessary for use of the recited judicial exception and are recited at a high level of generality. Furthermore, as discussed above, limitations with respect to the processor languages/terms, respectively, amount to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer. As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claims amount to no more than insignificant extra solution activity and mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B and does not provide an inventive concept. The data gathering steps that were considered insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A Prong Two, have been re-evaluated in Step 2B and determined to be well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field.
As an evidence, Matzinger et al (US 20030069509 A1) discloses:
¶0118, “an element configured to perform RBC characterization, e.g., RBC flux determination as described above, usually includes at least one light source capable of emitting light, usually coherent, single wavelength light, at a wavelength ranging from about 400 to 1200 nm, usually from about 450 to 800 nm such as a laser as is commonly known in the art, and a sensor or detector, typically a broadband sensor or detector, for detecting the intensity of light reflected from the RBCs. The at least one light source may thus include one or more: light emitting diode (LED), laser diode, light emitter, bispectral emitter, dual spectral emitter, photoemitter, photodiode, semiconductor die, or the like, and the detector may include one or more: photodiode, photoelectric receiver, photodetector such as a broadband photodetector, semiconductor die, or the like.”
As an evidence, Van Oostrum et al (US 20230349811 A1) discloses:
¶0040, “Optionally, the processor 12 can preprocess the interference image 11 as known in the art, e.g., to numerically correct for aberration”
As an evidence, Seki (US 20080181483 A1) discloses:
¶0033, “An exclusive well-known method is the method including: providing the camera adjusted so as to match the F-number (focal ratio) of a human's eyes (5.6) and the afterimage time of a human's eyes ( 1/30 second); image capturing a screen by using the camera in a defocussed state; determining the speckle contrast value from the picture; and evaluating the scintillation based on the speckle contrast value.”
For similar reasons set forth in Step 2A, Prong Two above, the additional elements of the light source configured to emit the at least quasi-coherent light through at least one of a nasal passage or an ear canal of the patient & detect resulting light passing through an ear canal of the patient; do not provide an inventive concept under Step 2B.
For these reasons, there is no inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. Even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more to the abstract idea.
Dependent Claims
The following dependent claims merely further define the abstract idea and are, therefore, directed to reciting an abstract idea for similar reasons and therefore are not eligible:
defining wherein the physiological characteristic of the patient comprises one or more flow values of a fluid, one or more flow values within vasculature of the tissue of the patient, an occurrence of an ischemic stroke, or an occurrence of a hemorrhagic stroke. (claim 2).
defining wherein the physiological characteristic of the patient comprises one or more flow values of a fluid, one or more flow values within vasculature of the tissue of the patient, an ischemic stroke, or a hemorrhagic stroke. (claim 13).
The following dependent claims merely further describe the extra-solution activities and therefore, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception or integrate the abstract idea into a practical application for similar reasons and therefore are not eligible:
describing wherein the light source is housed in one of a nasoscope or an otoscope. (claim 3);
describing wherein the detector comprises a detector optical axis defining a viewing direction of the detector, wherein the light source comprises a source optical axis defining an at least quasi-coherent light emission direction, wherein the detector is positioned such that an angle between the detector optical axis and the source optical axis is greater than 45 degrees and less than 270 degrees. (claim 4);
describing further comprising a first housing and a second housing, wherein the light source is disposed within the first housing, wherein the detector is disposed within the second housing different from the first housing, and wherein the first housing and the second housing are configured to be separated from each other by a threshold distance. (claim 5);
describing wherein the nasal passage is a first nasal passage, wherein the first housing is a nasoscope configured to position the light source in the first nasal passage of the patient, and wherein the second housing is configured to position the detector in at least one of a second nasal passage of the patient, the ear canal of the patient, or at a scalp of the patient. (claim 6);
describing wherein the ear canal is a first ear canal, wherein the first housing is an otoscope configured to position the light source in the first ear canal of the patient, and wherein the second housing is configured to position the detector in at least one of the nasal passage of the patient, a second ear canal of the patient, or at a scalp of the patient. (claim 7);
describing wherein the first housing is a head mounted device configured to be position the light source at a first position at a scalp of the patient, wherein the second housing is configured to position the detector in at least one of the nasal passage of the patient, the ear canal of the patient, or at a second position along the scalp of the patient, wherein the interference pattern image is representative of the portion of the tissue interacting with the quasi-coherent light traveling through the scalp of the patient. (claim 8);
describing wherein the light source is configured to emit the at least quasi-coherent light with a beam divergence of at least 15 degrees along one axis. (claim 9);
describing wherein the detector comprises a plurality of detectors positioned in at least one of the nasal passage of the patient, the ear canal of the patient, or at a scalp of the patient, wherein each detector of the plurality of detectors are separated from each other by a threshold distance. (claim 10);
describing wherein light source is configured to be positioned to emit the quasi-coherent light to a Circle of Willis or a proximal vessel within a head or neck of the patient. (claim 11);
describing wherein the light source is housed in at least one of a nasoscope or an otoscope. (claim 14);
describing wherein the detector comprises a detector optical axis defining a viewing direction of the detector, wherein the light source comprises a source optical axis defining a quasi-coherent light emission direction, wherein positioning the light source and positioning the detector comprises positioning the light source and positioning the detector such that an angle between detector optical axis and the source optical axis is greater than 45 degrees and less than 270 degrees. (claim 15);
describing wherein the light source is disposed within a first housing, wherein the detector is disposed within a second housing different from the first housing, wherein positioning the light source and positioning the detector comprises positioning the first housing separated from the second housing by a threshold distance. (claim 16);
describing wherein the light source is positioned to emit quasi-coherent light within a range of angles that subtends at least twenty-five per cent of the volume of a brain tissue of the patient (claim 17);
describing wherein the detector comprises a plurality of detectors positioned in at least one of a first or a second nasal cavity of the patient, a first or a second ear canal of the patient, or any position along a scalp of the patient, wherein each detector of the plurality of detectors is separated from the other detectors by a threshold distance. (claim 18);
describing wherein positioning the light source comprises positioning the light source to emit the quasi-coherent light to a Circle of Willis or a proximal vessel within a head or neck of the patient. (claim 19);
Taken alone and in combination, the additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application at least because the abstract idea is not applied, relied on, or used in a meaningful way. They also do not add anything significantly more than the abstract idea. Their collective functions merely provide computer/electronic implementation and processing, and no additional elements beyond those of the abstract idea. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer, output device, improves technology other than the technical field of the claimed invention, etc. Therefore, the claims are rejected as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The 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, 5-6, 8, 11-14, & 16-17, & 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Konecky et al (US 20230029744 A1) in view of Duadi et al (Non-contact optical in-vivo sensing of cilia motion by analyzing speckle patterns. Sci Rep 12, 16614 (2022)).
Claim 1: Konecky discloses, A system (¶Abstract) comprising:
a light source (104) configured to emit at least quasi-coherent light to tissue of a patient, the light source configured to emit the at least quasi-coherent light through the patient; (¶Abstract, ¶0029-0030, Claim 1, The imaging system includes the light source 104 (i.e., CW laser or pulsed laser) into a patients cranium and tissue sample. The light is delivered via an optical fiber position against the cranium allowing the photons to diffuse and propagate through the tissue. The light generator of the lights source generates coherent light of a narrow band of frequencies.)
a detector (106) configured to detect resulting light passing through at least a portion of the tissue and generate an interference pattern image, (¶Abstract, ¶0021, ¶0030-0031, The light detector 106 has a light sensor that captured the diffused light (i.e., exit signal) after it passes through the cranium and tissue. Konecky teaches generating the interference pattern by emitting the measurement beam of coherent light into the patient tissue and capturing the resulting light using the image sensor. The resulting image directly represented the targeted tissue portion of the patient, ¶0026, ¶0028-0035.)
wherein the interference pattern image is representative of the portion of the tissue interacting with the quasi-coherent light traveling through the patient, and (¶Abstract, ¶0035-0036, ¶0038-0039, ¶0079, the interference pattern image is representative of the tissue interaction with the coherent light patterns. The depth that the light travels into the cranium depends on the distance between the light source and the light detector.)
processing circuitry (processing logic 108) configured to:
receive the interference pattern image from the detector; (¶0032, ¶0035, ¶0038, ¶0062-0063, the processing logic is coupled to the detector and utilizes the communication channel to receive the image data from the image sensor)
generate a speckle contrast signal based on the interference pattern image; (¶0022, ¶0038, ¶0046, ¶0053, ¶0063, FIG. 4E, the coherence algorithm applied to the image data is used to quantify the interference patterns. The coherence value (i.e., the speckle contrast value) is calculated by taking the standard deviation by the mean of the pixel values. By performing this operation, the processing logic combines the sequential speckle contrast values to generate a waveform overtime, which constitutes as the speckle contrast signal “based on” the interference pattern image.)
determine, based on the speckle contrast signal or a metric derived from the speckle contrast signal, a physiological characteristic of the patient; and (¶0020, ¶0024, ¶0028, ¶0036, ¶0039-0040, ¶0042, regarding the processing logic analyzing the contrast values using rules and data modules determine motion characteristics. Key physiological characteristics are determined such as blood cell motion, blood flow rates, blood volume, oxygenation levels and blood vessel displacement. This allows the system to determine restricted blood flow of a ischemic or hemorrhagic stroke.)
output a representation of the physiological characteristic of the patient. (¶0025, ¶0065, ¶0073-0074, regarding the notification system that outputs the physiological findings of the patient.)
Konecky fails to disclose: the light source configured to emit the at least quasi-coherent light through at least one of a nasal passage or an ear canal of the patient;
However, Duadi in the context of analyzing speckle patterns of tissue via access of the nasal cavity discloses, the light source configured to emit the at least quasi-coherent light through at least one of a nasal passage of the patient; (The endoscopic setup uses a 650 nm laser projected though an optical fiber into a flexible endoscope, which is directed at the mucosa in the nasal cavity, [Introduction / pg. 2], ‘Note that this research is a proof of concept that there is an ability to measure the frequency of the movement of the cilia in the nasal cavity using the speckle-based endoscopic method.’. This 650 nm laser wavelength has low absorption in human tissue and provides the penetration depth into the tissue, indicating that light pass through at least a superficial portion of it before scattering back to the detector (i.e., the camera), [Methods / pg. 2], see also [Results and discussion / pg. 6], ‘in order to observe speckles, the source should be coherent with a long coherence length (about 1 cm). The laser source wavelength influences the penetration depth and the absorption in human tissue.’)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the light source of Konecky to be configured to emit the at least quasi-coherent light through at least one of a nasal passage of the patient as taught by Duadi. The motivation to do this yield predictable results such as improving endoscopic diagnosis for identification about different diseases of the tissue, as suggested by Duadi, [Introduction]. The modified combination would disclose the interference pattern imager representative of the portion of the tissue interacting with the quais-coherent light tracking through at least the nasal passage.
Claim 2: & Claim 13: Konecky as modified discloses all the elements above in claim 1 & 12, respectively, Konecky discloses, wherein the physiological characteristic of the patient comprises one or more flow values of a fluid (¶0036, ¶0050-0051), one or more flow values within vasculature of the tissue of the patient (¶0039, ¶0052), an occurrence of an ischemic stroke (¶0023-0024, ¶0039), or an occurrence of a hemorrhagic stroke (¶0023-0024, ¶0039).
Claim 3: & Claim 14: Konecky as modified discloses all the elements above in claim 1 & 12, respectively, Konecky fails to disclose, wherein the light source is housed in one of a nasoscope or an otoscope.
However, Duadi is relied upon above discloses, wherein the light source is housed in one of a nasoscope (The endoscopic setup uses a 650 nm laser projected though an optical fiber into a flexible endoscope, which is directed at the mucosa in the nasal cavity, [Introduction / pg. 2], ‘Note that this research is a proof of concept that there is an ability to measure the frequency of the movement of the cilia in the nasal cavity using the speckle-based endoscopic method.’. This 650 nm laser wavelength has low absorption in human tissue and provides the penetration depth into the tissue, indicating that light pass through at least a superficial portion of it before scattering back to the detector (i.e., the camera), [Methods / pg. 2], see also [Results and discussion / pg. 6], ‘in order to observe speckles, the source should be coherent with a long coherence length (about 1 cm). The laser source wavelength influences the penetration depth and the absorption in human tissue.’, see human measurements pg. 4, “the physician performs nasopharyngoscopy (nasopharynx-endoscopy). Nasopharyngoscopy is a diagnostic procedure that examines the nose and throat's internal structures and detects abnormalities in the nasopharyngeal area.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the light source of modified Konecky to be housed in a nasoscope (i.e., nasal endoscope) as taught by Duadi. The motivation to do this yield predictable results such as improving endoscopic diagnosis for identification about different diseases of the tissue, as suggested by Duadi, [Introduction]. The modified combination would disclose the interference pattern imager representative of the portion of the tissue interacting with the quais-coherent light tracking through at least the nasal passage.
Claim 5: & Claim 16: Konecky as modified discloses all the elements above in claim 1 & 12, respectively, Konecky discloses, further comprising a first housing and a second housing, wherein the light source (104) is disposed within the first housing (The physical casing of the light source 104. The physical component of the light source is enclosed in a casing see FIG. 1), wherein the detector is disposed within the second housing (The physical casing of the light detector 106. The physical component of the light source is enclosed in a casing see FIG. 1) different from the first housing (FIG. 1), and wherein the first housing and the second housing are configured to be separated from each other by a threshold distance (¶0035, “Measurement beam 110 has a depth into cranium 101 that at least partially depends on the distance d between light source 104 and light detector 106. That is, a larger distance d enables/targets deeper measurements and a smaller distance d enables/targets shallower measurements.”; ¶0079, “a distance between light source 604A and light detector 606A may be set to be the same as a distance between light source 604B and light detector 606B. The depth of measurement achieved by measurement waves 610 at least partially depends on a distance between a light source and a light detector. To target specific areas within cranium 601 and/or brain tissue sample 602, distances between light source 604 and light detector 606 may be lengthened (e.g., to 30 mm or greater) or may be decreased (e.g., to 10 mm or shorter) depending upon the specific location of interest.”. The threshold distance may be set by the user to be any appropriate value based on the objective of the imaging data processing.).
Claim 6: Konecky as modified discloses all the elements above in claim 5, Konecky disclose:
wherein the second housing is configured to position the detector in at least one at a scalp of the patient (FIG. 7-detectors 606A-B).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the second housing of modified Konecky such that it is configured to be a head mounted device as taught by Konecky for the advantage of providing an improved apparatus to target specific areas of the brain tissue, as suggested by Konecky, ¶0080, ¶0103.
Konecky fails to disclose:
wherein the nasal passage is a first nasal passage, wherein the first housing is a nasoscope configured to position the light source in the first nasal passage of the patient, and
However, Duadi is relied upon above discloses, wherein the nasal passage is a first nasal passage, wherein the first housing is a nasoscope configured to position the light source in the first nasal passage of the patient, and (The endoscopic setup uses a 650 nm laser projected though an optical fiber into a flexible endoscope, which is directed at the mucosa in the nasal cavity, [Introduction / pg. 2], ‘Note that this research is a proof of concept that there is an ability to measure the frequency of the movement of the cilia in the nasal cavity using the speckle-based endoscopic method.’. This 650 nm laser wavelength has low absorption in human tissue and provides the penetration depth into the tissue, indicating that light pass through at least a superficial portion of it before scattering back to the detector (i.e., the camera), [Methods / pg. 2], see also [Results and discussion / pg. 6], ‘in order to observe speckles, the source should be coherent with a long coherence length (about 1 cm). The laser source wavelength influences the penetration depth and the absorption in human tissue.’, see human measurements pg. 4, “the physician performs nasopharyngoscopy (nasopharynx-endoscopy). Nasopharyngoscopy is a diagnostic procedure that examines the nose and throat's internal structures and detects abnormalities in the nasopharyngeal area.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the light source of Konecky wherein the nasal passage is a first nasal passage, wherein the first housing is a nasoscope configured to position the light source in the first nasal passage of the patient, as taught by Duadi. The motivation to do this yield predictable results such as improving endoscopic diagnosis for identification about different diseases of the tissue, as suggested by Duadi, [Introduction]. The modified combination would disclose the interference pattern imager representative of the portion of the tissue interacting with the quais-coherent light tracking through at least the nasal passage.
Claim 8: Konecky as modified discloses all the elements above in claim 5, Konecky discloses, wherein the first housing is a head mounted device (¶0080, “A wearable hat or other sensor carrying device may include system imaging system 600 can be worn as a wearable, in some embodiments. Other wearables may also include all or part of imaging system 600.”, see also, ¶0103) configured to be position the light source at a first position at a scalp of the patient (FIG. 7), wherein the second housing is configured to position the detector in at least one of at a second position along the scalp of the patient (FIG. 7), wherein the interference pattern image is representative of the portion of the tissue interacting with the quasi-coherent light traveling through the scalp of the patient (¶0081).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the first housing of modified Konecky such that it is configured to be a head mounted device as taught by Konecky for the advantage of providing an improved apparatus to target specific areas of the brain tissue, as suggested by Konecky, ¶0080, ¶0103.
Claim 11: Konecky as modified discloses all the elements above in claim 1, Konecky fails to disclose, wherein light source is configured to be positioned to emit the quasi-coherent light to a Circle of Willis or a proximal vessel within a head or neck of the patient (FIG. 1, demonstrates a proximal vessel within a head of the patient, ¶Abstract, ¶0029-0030, Claim 1, The imaging system includes the light source 104 (i.e., CW laser or pulsed laser) into a patients cranium and tissue sample. The light is delivered via an optical fiber position against the cranium allowing the photons to diffuse and propagate through the tissue. The light generator of the lights source generates coherent light of a narrow band of frequencies.)).
Claim 12: Konecky discloses, A method comprising:
positioning a light source (104) to emit at least quasi-coherent light to tissue of a patient through the patient; (¶Abstract, ¶0029-0030, Claim 1, The imaging system includes the light source 104 (i.e., CW laser or pulsed laser) into a patients cranium and tissue sample. The light is delivered via an optical fiber position against the cranium allowing the photons to diffuse and propagate through the tissue. The light generator of the lights source generates coherent light of a narrow band of frequencies.)
positioning a detector (106) to detect resulting light passing through at least a portion of the tissue; (¶Abstract, ¶0021, ¶0030-0031, The light detector 106 has a light sensor that captured the diffused light (i.e., exit signal) after it passes through the cranium and tissue. Konecky teaches generating the interference pattern by emitting the measurement beam of coherent light into the patient tissue and capturing the resulting light using the image sensor. The resulting image directly represented the targeted tissue portion of the patient, ¶0026, ¶0028-0035.)
generating, by the detector and based on the resulting light, an interference pattern image, wherein the interference pattern image is representative of the portion of the tissue interacting with the quasi-coherent light traveling through the patient; (¶Abstract, ¶0035-0036, ¶0038-0039, ¶0079, the interference pattern image is representative of the tissue interaction with the coherent light patterns. The depth that the light travels into the cranium depends on the distance between the light source and the light detector.)
receiving, by processing circuitry, (processing logic 108) the interference pattern image from the detector; (¶0032, ¶0035, ¶0038, ¶0062-0063, the processing logic is coupled to the detector and utilizes the communication channel to receive the image data from the image sensor)
generating, by the processing circuitry, a speckle contrast signal based on the interference pattern image; (¶0022, ¶0038, ¶0046, ¶0053, ¶0063, FIG. 4E, the coherence algorithm applied to the image data is used to quantify the interference patterns. The coherence value (i.e., the speckle contrast value) is calculated by taking the standard deviation by the mean of the pixel values. By performing this operation, the processing logic combines the sequential speckle contrast values to generate a waveform overtime, which constitutes as the speckle contrast signal “based on” the interference pattern image.)
determining, by the processing circuitry and based on the speckle contrast signal or a metric derived from the speckle contrast signal, a physiological characteristic of the patient; and (¶0020, ¶0024, ¶0028, ¶0036, ¶0039-0040, ¶0042, regarding the processing logic analyzing the contrast values using rules and data modules determine motion characteristics. Key physiological characteristics are determined such as blood cell motion, blood flow rates, blood volume, oxygenation levels and blood vessel displacement. This allows the system to determine restricted blood flow of a ischemic or hemorrhagic stroke.)
outputting a representation of the physiological characteristic of the patient. (¶0025, ¶0065, ¶0073-0074, regarding the notification system that outputs the physiological findings of the patient.)
Konecky fails to disclose: the light source to emit at least quasi-coherent light to tissue of a patient through at least one of a nasal passage or an ear canal of the patient;
However, Duadi in the context of analyzing speckle patterns of tissue via access of the nasal cavity discloses, a light source to emit at least quasi-coherent light to tissue of a patient through at least one of a nasal passage of the patient; (The endoscopic setup uses a 650 nm laser projected though an optical fiber into a flexible endoscope, which is directed at the mucosa in the nasal cavity, [Introduction / pg. 2], ‘Note that this research is a proof of concept that there is an ability to measure the frequency of the movement of the cilia in the nasal cavity using the speckle-based endoscopic method.’. This 650 nm laser wavelength has low absorption in human tissue and provides the penetration depth into the tissue, indicating that light pass through at least a superficial portion of it before scattering back to the detector (i.e., the camera), [Methods / pg. 2], see also [Results and discussion / pg. 6], ‘in order to observe speckles, the source should be coherent with a long coherence length (about 1 cm). The laser source wavelength influences the penetration depth and the absorption in human tissue.’)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the light source of Konecky to be configured to emit the at least quasi-coherent light through to the tissue of the patient through at least one of a nasal passage of the patient as taught by Duadi. The motivation to do this yield predictable results such as improving endoscopic diagnosis for identification about different diseases of the tissue, as suggested by Duadi, [Introduction]. The modified combination would disclose the interference pattern imager representative of the portion of the tissue interacting with the quais-coherent light tracking through at least the nasal passage.
Claim 17: Konecky as modified discloses all the elements above in claim 12, Konecky discloses, that the light interacts with a portion of the volume of the brain. The measurement beam diffuses into targeted sample, ¶Abstract, and that the system gathers data from 3D voxels of the cranium, ¶0061. The system of Konecky further targets these specific areas within the cranium and/or brain tissue by adjusting the distance between the light source and light detector, ¶0079. The light source emitting light into the brain tissue through the optical fiber would scatter, and spread and thus travel over a range of angles.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify modified Konecky so that the angles subtends at least twenty-five percent of the volume of the a brain tissue of the patient because it has been held that "in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists" (see MPEP 2144.05 subsection I), no criticality is given for the claimed percentage, one of ordinary skill in the art could have made the modification with known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to obtain the claimed percentage through routine experimentation.
Claim 19: Konecky as modified discloses all the elements above in claim 12, Konecky fails to disclose, wherein positioning the light source comprises positioning the light source to emit the quasi-coherent light to a Circle of Willis or a proximal vessel within a head or neck of the patient (FIG. 1, demonstrates a proximal vessel within a head of the patient, ¶Abstract, ¶0029-0030, Claim 1, The imaging system includes the light source 104 (i.e., CW laser or pulsed laser) into a patients cranium and tissue sample. The light is delivered via an optical fiber position against the cranium allowing the photons to diffuse and propagate through the tissue. The light generator of the lights source generates coherent light of a narrow band of frequencies.)).
Claims 4 and 15 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Konecky et al (US 20230029744 A1) in view of Duadi et al (Non-contact optical in-vivo sensing of cilia motion by analyzing speckle patterns. Sci Rep 12, 16614 (2022)), as applied to claim 1 & 12 respectively, in further view of Long et al (Light-sheet laser speckle imaging for cilia motility assessment. Comput Struct Biotechnol J. 2023 Feb 20;21:1661-1669)
Claim 4: & Claim 15: Konecky as modified discloses all the elements above in claim 1 & 12, respectively, Konecky fails to disclose, wherein the detector comprises a detector optical axis defining a viewing direction of the detector, wherein the light source comprises a source optical axis defining an at least quasi-coherent light emission direction, wherein the detector is positioned such that an angle between the detector optical axis and the source optical axis is greater than 45 degrees and less than 270 degrees.
However, Long in the context of laser speckling imaging of the nasal field discloses: wherein the detector comprises a detector optical axis defining a viewing direction of the detector ([2.1 Setup / pg. 1662], The detection light path where the scattered photons are collect are along a detection axis by the detection objective and projected onto the sensing area.), wherein the light source comprises a source optical axis defining an at least quasi-coherent light emission direction, wherein the detector is positioned such that an angle between the detector optical axis and the source optical axis is greater than 45 degrees and less than 270 degrees. ([3.1. Oblique light-sheet laser speckle imaging system characteristics / pg. 1663-1664], ‘the system was configured in a way such that the illumination beam and the detection beam formed a large angle, which was greater than 90”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the detector and light source of modified Konecky such that the detector is positioned such that an angle between the detector optical axis and the source optical axis is greater than 45 degrees and less than 270 degrees as taught by Long. The motivation to do this yield predictable results such as providing stronger signal for faster acquisition, as suggested by Long, [3.1. Oblique light-sheet laser speckle imaging system characteristics / pg. 1663-1664].
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Konecky et al (US 20230029744 A1) in view of Duadi et al (Non-contact optical in-vivo sensing of cilia motion by analyzing speckle patterns. Sci Rep 12, 16614 (2022)), as applied to claim 5, in further view of Boppart et al (US20090185191A1).
Claim 7: Konecky as modified discloses all the elements above in claim 5, Konecky discloses:
wherein the second housing is configured to position the detector in at least one at a scalp of the patient. (FIG. 7-detectors 606A-B).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the second housing of modified Konecky such that it is configured to be a head mounted device as taught by Konecky for the advantage of providing an improved apparatus to target specific areas of the brain tissue, as suggested by Konecky, ¶0080, ¶0103.
Konecky fails to disclose, wherein the ear canal is a first ear canal, wherein the first housing is an otoscope configured to position the light source in the first ear canal of the patient,
However, Boppart in the context of low coherence light for otoscopes disclose: wherein the ear canal is a first ear canal, wherein the first housing is an otoscope configured to position the light source in the first ear canal of the patient, (¶0128-0140, the otoscope is inserted into the ear canal and uses its direct light beam to through the ear.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the first housing of modified Konecky such that it is a otoscope for the first ear canal of the patient to position light therein as taught by Boppart. The motivation to do this yield predictable results such as improved performance of spectral-domain operation over the time-domain operation should further assist this detection by providing improved signal-to-noise at faster acquisition rates as suggested by Boppart, ¶0152.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Konecky et al (US 20230029744 A1) in view of Duadi et al (Non-contact optical in-vivo sensing of cilia motion by analyzing speckle patterns. Sci Rep 12, 16614 (2022)), as applied to claim 1, in further view of Munoz (US 20160157725 A1).
Claim 9: Konecky as modified discloses all the elements above in claim 1, Konecky fails to disclose, wherein the light source is configured to emit the at least quasi-coherent light with a beam divergence of at least 15 degrees along one axis.
However, Munoz in the context of assessing tissue structure with laser speckle analysis discloses: wherein the light source is configured to emit the at least quasi-coherent light with a beam divergence of at least 15 degrees along one axis (¶0076).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify light source of modified Konecky such that it is configured to emit the at least quasi-coherent light with a beam divergence of at least 15 degrees along one axis as taught by Munoz. The motivation to do this yield predictable results such as to provide a uniform coherent light to a region of interests, as suggested by Munoz, ¶0113.
Claims 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Konecky et al (US 20230029744 A1) in view of Duadi et al (Non-contact optical in-vivo sensing of cilia motion by analyzing speckle patterns. Sci Rep 12, 16614 (2022)) in view of Munoz (US 20160157725 A1), as applied to claim 9, in further view of Lewis et al (US 5482034 A).
Claim 10: Konecky as modified discloses all the elements above in claim 9, Konecky discloses, wherein the detector comprises a plurality of detectors positioned in at least one of at a scalp of the patient (FIG. 7-detectors 606A-B),
Konecky fails to disclose:
wherein each detector of the plurality of detectors are separated from each other by a threshold distance.
However, Lewis in the context of optical path optimization discloses, wherein each detector of the plurality of detectors are separated from each other by a threshold distance ([Col. 7 l.29-59], the far detector should be positioned at least about 5 to 10 mm distance from the near detector. This separation distance acts as a threshold to guarantee that a distinguishable and different internal tissue volume is in fact sampled by the second such detector).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify plurality of detectors of modified Konecky such that each detector is separated by a threshold distance as taught by Lewis. The motivation to do this yield predictable results such as to ensure the optical path travels complexly through the full thickness of the skull and into internal brain tissue, as suggested by Lewis, [Col .6 l.47-67].
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Konecky et al (US 20230029744 A1) in view of Duadi et al (Non-contact optical in-vivo sensing of cilia motion by analyzing speckle patterns. Sci Rep 12, 16614 (2022)), as applied to claim 17, in further view of Lewis et al (US 5482034 A).
Claim 18: Konecky as modified discloses all the elements above in claim 17, Konecky discloses, wherein the detector comprises a plurality of detectors positioned in at least one of any position along a scalp of the patient, (FIG. 7-detectors 606A-B)
Konecky fails to disclose:
wherein each detector of the plurality of detectors is separated from the other detectors by a threshold distance.
However, Lewis in the context of optical path optimization discloses, wherein each detector of the plurality of detectors is separated from the other detectors by a threshold distance ([Col. 7 l.29-59], the far detector should be positioned at least about 5 to 10 mm distance from the near detector. This separation distance acts as a threshold to guarantee that a distinguishable and different internal tissue volume is in fact sampled by the second such detector).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify plurality of detectors of modified Konecky such that each detector is separated by a threshold distance as taught by Lewis. The motivation to do this yield predictable results such as to ensure the optical path travels complexly through the full thickness of the skull and into internal brain tissue, as suggested by Lewis, [Col .6 l.47-67].
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Konecky et al (US 20230029744 A1) in view of Duadi et al (Non-contact optical in-vivo sensing of cilia motion by analyzing speckle patterns. Sci Rep 12, 16614 (2022)) in view of Boppart et al (US20090185191A1).
Claim 20: A laser speckle imaging system (¶Abstract) comprising:
a laser (104) configured to emit at least quasi-coherent light to tissue of a patient, the laser configured to emit the at least quasi-coherent light through the patient; (¶Abstract, ¶0029-0030, Claim 1, The imaging system includes the light source 104 (i.e., CW laser or pulsed laser) into a patients cranium and tissue sample. The light is delivered via an optical fiber position against the cranium allowing the photons to diffuse and propagate through the tissue. The light generator of the lights source generates coherent light of a narrow band of frequencies.)
a detector (106) configured to:
detect resulting light passing through at least a portion of the tissue; and (¶Abstract, ¶0021, ¶0030-0031, The light detector 106 has a light sensor that captured the diffused light (i.e., exit signal) after it passes through the cranium and tissue. Konecky teaches generating the interference pattern by emitting the measurement beam of coherent light into the patient tissue and capturing the resulting light using the image sensor. The resulting image directly represented the targeted tissue portion of the patient, ¶0026, ¶0028-0035.)
generate a laser interference pattern image of the tissue, (¶Abstract, ¶0021, ¶0030-0031, The light detector 106 has a light sensor that captured the diffused light (i.e., exit signal) after it passes through the cranium and tissue. Konecky teaches generating the interference pattern by emitting the measurement beam of coherent light into the patient tissue and capturing the resulting light using the image sensor. The resulting image directly represented the targeted tissue portion of the patient, ¶0026, ¶0028-0035.) wherein the laser interference pattern image is representative of the portion of the tissue interacting with the at least quasi-coherent light traveling through the patient (¶Abstract, ¶0035-0036, ¶0038-0039, ¶0079, the interference pattern image is representative of the tissue interaction with the coherent light patterns. The depth that the light travels into the cranium depends on the distance between the light source and the light detector.); and
processing circuitry (processing logic 108) configured to:
receive the laser interference pattern image from the detector; (¶0032, ¶0035, ¶0038, ¶0062-0063, the processing logic is coupled to the detector and utilizes the communication channel to receive the image data from the image sensor)
generate a speckle contrast signal or a metric derived from the speckle contrast signal based on the laser interference pattern image; (¶0022, ¶0038, ¶0046, ¶0053, ¶0063, FIG. 4E, the coherence algorithm applied to the image data is used to quantify the interference patterns. The coherence value (i.e., the speckle contrast value) is calculated by taking the standard deviation by the mean of the pixel values. By performing this operation, the processing logic combines the sequential speckle contrast values to generate a waveform overtime, which constitutes as the speckle contrast signal “based on” the interference pattern image.)
determine, based on the speckle contrast signal or the metric derived from the speckle contrast signal, an occurrence of a stroke (¶0020, ¶0024, ¶0028, ¶0036, ¶0039-0040, ¶0042, regarding the processing logic analyzing the contrast values using rules and data modules determine motion characteristics. Key physiological characteristics are determined such as blood cell motion, blood flow rates, blood volume, oxygenation levels and blood vessel displacement. This allows the system to determine restricted blood flow of a ischemic or hemorrhagic stroke.); and
output a representation of the occurrence of the stroke. (¶0025, ¶0065, ¶0073-0074, regarding the notification system that outputs the physiological findings of the patient.)
Konecky fails to disclose: the laser configured to emit the at least quasi-coherent light through a nasal passage of the patient;
However, Duadi in the context of analyzing speckle patterns of tissue via access of the nasal cavity discloses, the laser configured to emit the at least quasi-coherent light through a nasal passage of the patient; (The endoscopic setup uses a 650 nm laser projected though an optical fiber into a flexible endoscope, which is directed at the mucosa in the nasal cavity, [Introduction / pg. 2], ‘Note that this research is a proof of concept that there is an ability to measure the frequency of the movement of the cilia in the nasal cavity using the speckle-based endoscopic method.’. This 650 nm laser wavelength has low absorption in human tissue and provides the penetration depth into the tissue, indicating that light pass through at least a superficial portion of it before scattering back to the detector (i.e., the camera), [Methods / pg. 2], see also [Results and discussion / pg. 6], ‘in order to observe speckles, the source should be coherent with a long coherence length (about 1 cm). The laser source wavelength influences the penetration depth and the absorption in human tissue.’)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the laser of Konecky to be configured to emit the at least quasi-coherent light through a nasal passage of the patient as taught by Duadi. The motivation to do this yield predictable results such as improving endoscopic diagnosis for identification about different diseases of the tissue, as suggested by Duadi, [Introduction]. The modified combination would disclose the interference pattern imager representative of the portion of the tissue interacting with the quais-coherent light tracking through at least the nasal passage.
Konecky fails to disclose: that the detected light passing through an ear canal of the patient
However, Boppart in the context of low coherence light for otoscopes disclose: a detector to detect light passing through an ear canal of the patient.
(¶Abstract, ¶0081, ¶0130, ¶0134)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the detector of modified Konecky such that it’s an otoscope to detect the light passing through the ear canal of the patient as taught by Boppart. The motivation to do this yield predictable results such as improved performance of spectral-domain operation over the time-domain operation should further assist this detection by providing improved signal-to-noise at faster acquisition rates as suggested by Boppart, ¶0152.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Nicholas Robinson whose telephone number is (571)272-9019. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00AM-5:00PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Pascal Bui-Pho can be reached at (571) 272-2714. 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.
/N.A.R./Examiner, Art Unit 3798
/PASCAL M BUI PHO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3798
Prosecution Insights