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 .
Detailed Action
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 2, 9, 10, 15, 20-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim 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.
Regarding Claim 2, the applicant claims “wherein the laser is an open space coherent near infrared laser,” however it isn’t clear from the specification what an “open space” laser is. The examiner construes the applicant might mean “open cavity” laser but no context is given in the specification thus the scope of the limitation is unclear.
Claim 9 is rejected for the same reason due to its dependency.
Regarding Claim 10, the applicant claims “a mirror for reflecting light from the collimating lens toward a micromirror window of the DMD,” but doesn’t have a proper antecedent basis for “the collimating lens” in the claim chain. Thus, the scope of the limitation is confusing since there’s no prior mention of this structure.
Regarding Claim 15, the applicant claims “wherein the camera is an InGaAs (SWIR) (sCMOS) camera. From the disclosure in the specification this seems to be two different camera architectures thus it isn’t clear if the applicant meant an InGaAs SWIR or sCMOS camera or that it is somehow a combination of the two. Thus, the scope is confusing and this should be clarified.
Regarding Claim 15, the applicant claims “incorporating optics to create widefield homogenous illumination on the DMD” but this is the first mention of the DMD in the chain thus this is an improper antecedent basis. This should be fixed to clarify that it is the same DMD as the one later mentioned in the claim.
Additionally, the applicant claims, “incorporating optics to magnify the pattern” without a proper antecedent basis for “the pattern” and it isn’t clear what pattern the applicant is referring to.
Claims 21-29 are rejected based upon their dependency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 8, 10, 12, 14-19, 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Valdes et al (Claudia P. Valdes, Hari M. Varma, Anna K. Kristoffersen, Tanja Dragojevic, Joseph P. Culver, and Turgut Durduran, "Speckle contrast optical spectroscopy, a non-invasive, diffuse optical method for measuring microvascular blood flow in tissue," Biomed. Opt. Express 5, 2769-2784 (2014)) (Valdes) in view of Drori et al (PGPub 2022/0378300) (Drori)
Regarding Claim 1, Valdes discloses a system for determining deep tissue optical properties, hemodynamics and function comprising:
a laser operable to illuminate coherent near infrared light (Fig. 2(a), Pg 2775, Section 2.2 Transmission Geometry). Light at 785nm is in the infrared range;
scanning mirrors (See fig. 2(a)) configured to receive light from the laser and operable to generate a flexible scanning beam directed at a region of interest (ROI) of a subject (Sample); and
a camera (fig. 2(a)) synchronized with the DMD to continuously capture raw intensity images from the ROI (Pg 2775, Section 2.2 Transmission Geometry).
Valdes fails to explicitly disclose a programable digital micromirror device (DMD) configured to receive light from the laser and operable to generate a flexible scanning beam directed at a region of interest (ROI) of a subject;
However, Drori teaches a system for speckle imaging (Fig. 19a, Paragraphs 611, 634) which has a projection system (1912) which can include a DMD (Paragraph 641);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Valdes with a programable digital micromirror device (DMD) configured to receive light from the laser and operable to generate a flexible scanning beam directed at a region of interest (ROI) of a subject because a DMD would be functionally equivalent to the scanning mirrors and would be chosen based upon availability of parts, and cost.
Regarding Claim 2, Valdes as modified by Drori discloses the aforementioned but fails to explicitly disclose wherein the laser is an open space coherent near infrared laser;
However, the examiner takes official notice that one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would know to use an open space coherent near infrared laser;
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Valdes as modified by Drori with wherein the laser is an open space coherent near infrared laser because this is functionally equivalent to the laser disclosed in Valdes and would be chosen based upon availability and cost.
Regarding Claim 3, Valdes as modified by Drori discloses the aforementioned. Further, Valdes discloses wherein the flexible scanning beam provides line-shaped scanning at the ROI of the subject (Section 4 Discussion, Pg 2782, 4th full paragraph). Valdes discloses that it is known to do line beam scanning.
Regarding Claim 4, Valdes as modified by Drori discloses the aforementioned but fails to explicitly disclose wherein the laser is a fiber coupled coherent near infrared laser;
However, the examiner takes official notice that one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would know to use a fiber coupled coherent near infrared laser;
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Valdes as modified by Drori with wherein the laser is a fiber coupled coherent near infrared laser because this is functionally equivalent to the laser disclosed in Valdes and would be chosen based upon availability and cost.
Regarding Claim 8, Valdes as modified by Drori discloses the aforementioned but fails to explicitly disclose a collimating lens receiving light from the laser;
However, the examiner takes official notice that one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would know to use a collimating lens receiving light from the laser;
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Valdes as modified by Drori with a collimating lens receiving light from the laser because a collimating lens ensures an even illumination on a sample by reducing divergence which allows for easing control of the light.
Regarding Claim 10, Valdes as modified by Drori discloses the aforementioned but fails to explicitly disclose a mirror for reflecting light from the collimating lens toward a micromirror window of the DMD;
However, Valdes shows scanning mirrors and then a mirror to reflect, thus the examiner takes official notice that reversing this situation (with the DMD of Drori substituted for the scanning mirrors) would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing;
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Valdes as modified by Drori with a mirror for reflecting light from the collimating lens toward a micromirror window of the DMD because this is functionally equivalent to the setup shown in Valdes and it would be common sense to arrange the optics in whatever order works for the apparatus.
Regarding Claim 12, Valdes as modified by Drori discloses the aforementioned.
Further, Valdes discloses a lens to maintain the speckle size to pixels size camera (Section 2.2 Transmission Geometry, Pg 2775. 1st Paragraph) but fails to explicitly disclose an adjustable zoom lens on the camera;
However, the examiner takes official notice that one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would know to use an adjustable zoom lens on the camera;
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Valdes as modified by Drori with an adjustable zoom lens on the camera because this allows one to adjust the magnification of the speckles on the camera to maintain the desired speckle size thus improving the accuracy of the measurement.
Regarding Claim 14, Valdes as modified by Drori discloses the aforementioned. Further, Valdes discloses wherein the camera is a scientific complementary metal-oxide semiconductor (sCMOS) camera (Section 2.2 Transmission Geometry, Pg 2775. 1st Paragraph).
Regarding Claim 15, Valdes as modified by Drori discloses the aforementioned. Further, Valdes discloses wherein the camera is an (sCMOS) camera (Pg 2775, Section 2.2 Transmission Geometry);
Valdes fails to explicitly disclose that it is an InGaAs (SWIR) sCMOS camera;
However, the examiner takes official notice that one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would know to use InGaAs (SWIR) as the sensor;
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Valdes as modified by Drori with an InGaAs (SWIR) sCMOS camera because InGaAs as the sensor is a material that is highly sensitive to the shortwave infrared range and would be chosen based upon the light being used which is determined by the material of the sample.
Regarding Claim 16, Valdes as modified by Drori discloses the aforementioned. Further, the limitation, “wherein the system is portable and movable,” is met since it does not describe a structural feature that makes this function possible and broadly all objects meet this limitation.
Regarding Claim 17, Valdes as modified by Drori discloses the aforementioned. Further, the limitation, “wherein the DMD generates structured scanning patterns at different phases and/or frequencies,” is a functional limitation that the DMD is capable of performing. Thus, the limitation is met.
Regarding Claim 18, Valdes as modified by Drori discloses the aforementioned. Further, the limitation, “wherein the DMD generates different scanning patterns including cross shape scanning, parallel line scanning and multipoint scanning,” is a functional limitation that the DMD is capable of performing. Thus, the limitation is met.
Regarding Claim 19, Valdes as modified by Drori discloses the aforementioned. Further, the limitation, “wherein the DMD generates multiple coverage interleaved scanning,” is a functional limitation that the DMD is capable of performing. Thus, the limitation is met.
Regarding Claim 30, Valdes discloses an integrated instrument for performing continuous measurements, comprising:
a coherent laser operable to illuminate coherent infrared light (Fig. 2(a), Pg 2775, Section 2.2 Transmission Geometry). Light at 785nm is in the infrared range;
a scanning mirror configured to receive light from the laser and operable to generate a line shape beam directed at a region of interest (ROI) of a subject (Section 4 Discussion, Pg 2782, 4th full paragraph). Valdes discloses that it is known to do line beam scanning; and
a scientific complementary metal-oxide semiconductor (sCMOS) camera synchronized with the DMD to continuously capture raw intensity images from the ROI (Section 2.2 Transmission Geometry, Pg 2775. 1st Paragraph);
wherein the integrated instrument is portable and movable. This is met since it does not describe a structural feature that makes this function possible and broadly all objects meet this limitation;
Valdes fails to explicitly disclose the laser is an open-space coherent laser; and
a programable digital micromirror device (DMD);
However, Drori teaches a system for speckle imaging (Fig. 19a, Paragraphs 611, 634) which has a projection system (1912) which can include a DMD (Paragraph 641);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Valdes with a programable digital micromirror device (DMD) configured to receive light from the laser and operable to generate a flexible scanning beam directed at a region of interest (ROI) of a subject because a DMD would be functionally equivalent to the scanning mirrors and would be chosen based upon availability of parts, and cost;
Valdes as modified by Drori still fails to explicitly disclose wherein the laser is an open space coherent near infrared laser;
However, the examiner takes official notice that one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would know to use an open space coherent near infrared laser;
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Valdes as modified by Drori with wherein the laser is an open space coherent near infrared laser because this is functionally equivalent to the laser disclosed in Valdes and would be chosen based upon availability and cost.
Claim(s) 5-7, 9, 11, 13, 20-24, 27-29, & 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Valdes in view of Drori and further in view of Ghijsen et al (Ghijsen M, Lentsch GR, Gioux S, Brenner M, Durkin AJ, Choi B, Tromberg BJ. Quantitative real-time optical imaging of the tissue metabolic rate of oxygen consumption. J Biomed Opt. 2018 Mar;23(3):1-12. doi: 10.1117/1.JBO.23.3.036013. PMID: 29575830; PMCID: PMC5866507.) (Ghijsen).
Regarding Claims 5-7, 9, 11, & 13, Valdes as modified by Drori discloses the aforementioned but fails to explicitly disclose wherein the laser includes multiple lasers used for multispectral imaging; wherein an optical switch is used to switch wavelengths ,a linear polarizer; an engineered diffuser to create a homogeneous illumination; comprising a projection lens to receive light from the DMD and deliver it on the ROI; a linear polarizer and long-pass filter in front of the zoom lens;
However, Ghijsen discloses a hybrid LSI and SFDI (Fig. 1, Pg. 2, Left Column first full paragraph) which comprises:
wherein the laser includes multiple lasers (600 nm and 850nm laser diodes, fig. 1) used for multispectral imaging;
wherein an optical switch (Fig. 1, optical chopper) is used to switch wavelengths (Fig. 1, Section 2.1 instrumentation). As stated, the chopper is used to multiplex the wavelengths;
a linear polarizer (Fig. 1, Section 2.1 instrumentation). A wire mesh polarizer is a linear polarizer (Also applicant’s linear polarizer in front of a zoom lens);
an engineered diffuser to create a homogeneous illumination (Fig. 1, Section 2.1 instrumentation);
a projection lens to receive light from the DMD and deliver it on the ROI (See fig. 1). In combination with Valdes and Drori the projection lens of Ghijsen would meet this limitation;
Further, Ghijsen discloses a long-pass filter (Fig. 1, Section 2.1 instrumentation). Ghijsen discloses using a hot mirror to combine the beams and labels is a low pass in the figure. Low pass is another term for long pass and the mirror acts as a filter thus meeting the limitation. Additionally, this would be optically in front of the zoom lens since it would be upstream of the optical path from the zoom lens;
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Valdes as modified by Drori with wherein the laser includes multiple lasers used for multispectral imaging; wherein an optical switch is used to switch wavelengths ,a linear polarizer; an engineered diffuser to create a homogeneous illumination; comprising a projection lens to receive light from the DMD and deliver it on the ROI; a linear polarizer and long-pass filter in front of the zoom lens because a cSFDI as disclosed would offer such advantages as being able to monitor concentrations of tissue chromophore as well as relative blood flow.
Regarding Claim 20, Valdes discloses a method of determining deep tissue optical properties, hemodynamics and function, comprising:
illuminating coherent light with a laser (Fig. 2(a), Pg 2775, Section 2.2 Transmission Geometry);
receiving the homogeneous light on a scanning mirror (See fig. 2(a));
directing a line shape beam (Section 4 Discussion, Pg 2782, 4th full paragraph). Valdes discloses that it is known to do line beam scanning; and
continuously capturing raw intensity images from the ROI with a camera synchronized with the DMD (Pg 2775, Section 2.2 Transmission Geometry);
Valdes fails to disclose a digital micromirror device (DMD), and incorporating optics to create widefield homogenous illumination; incorporating optics to magnify the patten at a region of interest (ROI) of a subject;
However, Drori teaches a system for speckle imaging (Fig. 19a, Paragraphs 611, 634) which has a projection system (1912) which can include a DMD (Paragraph 641);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Valdes with a digital micromirror device (DMD) because a DMD would be functionally equivalent to the scanning mirrors and would be chosen based upon availability of parts, and cost;
Valdes as modified by Drori still fails to explicitly disclose incorporating optics to create widefield homogenous illumination; incorporating optics to magnify the patten at a region of interest (ROI) of a subject;
However, Ghijsen discloses a hybrid LSI and SFDI (Fig. 1, Pg. 2, Left Column first full paragraph) which comprises:
incorporating optics to create widefield homogenous illumination (Fig. 1, Beam expander and Diffuser);
incorporating optics to magnify the patten at a region of interest (ROI) of a subject (Fig. 1, Projection lens);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Valdes as modified by Drori with incorporating optics to create widefield homogenous illumination; incorporating optics to magnify the patten at a region of interest (ROI) of a subject because a cSFDI as disclosed would offer such advantages as being able to monitor concentrations of tissue chromophore as well as relative blood flow.
Regarding Claim 21, Valdes as modified by Drori and Ghijsen discloses the aforementioned. Further, Ghijsen discloses passing the light from the laser through a collimating lens (Section 2.1 instrumentation). Ghijsen discloses each of the lasers are collimated by a lens; and
reflecting light from the collimating lens toward a micromirror window of the DMD with a flat mirror (See fig. 1). As shown both lasers are reflected from a mirror into the optical path, in combination with Valdes and Drori it would be obvious that this optical train would take the light to the DMD for scanning. Thus, the limitation is met;
The reasons for combining Valdes as modified by Drori with the teaches of Ghijsen remains the same as above.
Regarding Claim 22, Valdes as modified by Drori and Ghijsen discloses the aforementioned. Further, Valdes discloses a lens to maintain the speckle size to pixels size camera (Section 2.2 Transmission Geometry, Pg 2775. 1st Paragraph);
Further, Ghijsen teaches a linear polarizer and a long-pass filter (Fig. 1, Section 2.1 instrumentation);
Valdes as modified by Drori and Ghijsen fails to explicitly disclose adjusting a zoom lens to focus on the ROI;
Further, both the linear polarizer and long-pass filter would be in front of the zoom lens;
However, the examiner takes official notice that one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would know to use an adjustable zoom lens on the camera;
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Valdes as modified by Drori and Ghijsen with adjusting a zoom lens to focus on the ROI because this allows one to adjust the magnification of the speckles on the camera to maintain the desired speckle size thus improving the accuracy of the measurement.
Regarding Claim 23, Valdes as modified by Drori and Ghijsen discloses the aforementioned but fails to explicitly disclose generating, by the DMD, structured scanning patterns at different phases and/or frequencies;
However, the examiner takes official notice that one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would know to use the DMD to generate structured scanning patterns at different phases and/or frequencies;
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Valdes as modified by Drori and Ghijsen with generating, by the DMD, structured scanning patterns at different phases and/or frequencies because this can be used to correct for wavefront aberrations caused by the optics of the device and by the sample thus improving the accuracy of the measurement.
Regarding Claim 24, Valdes as modified by Drori and Ghijsen discloses the aforementioned. Further, Ghijsen discloses defining a detection area (ROI) located at certain distances from the source;
selectively capturing diffused photons originating from certain depths within the subject with the camera to effectively eliminate single-scattering photons emanating from the surface of the tissue (Fig. 1, Section 2.1 instrumentation). The linear polarizer accomplishes this by suppressing the specular reflection from the surface; and
generating 2-dimensional maps of tissue blood flow at different depth in real time (Section 2.5 Five-Minute Arterial Occlusion Experiment). tMRO2 maps are a measurement of blood flow and oxy- and deoxyhemoglobin concentration.
The reasons for combination are the same as above.
Regarding Claim 27, Valdes as modified by Drori and Ghijsen discloses the aforementioned but fails to explicitly disclose extracting tissue surface geometry from the raw intensity images obtained by the camera;
However, the examiner takes official notice this would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing;
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Valdes as modified by Drori and Ghijsen with extracting tissue surface geometry from the raw intensity images obtained by the camera because this would be trivial for one of ordinary skill in the art and would aid in the mapping of the blood flow within the sample.
Regarding Claim 28, Valdes as modified by Drori and Ghijsen discloses the aforementioned. Further, Ghijsen discloses extracting tissue oxygenation images from multiple wavelength data. (Section 2.5 Five-Minute Arterial Occlusion Experiment). tMRO2 maps are a measurement of blood flow and oxy- and deoxyhemoglobin concentration.
The reasons for combination are the same as above.
Regarding Claim 29, Valdes as modified by Drori and Ghijsen discloses the aforementioned but fails to explicitly disclose extracting tissue optical properties from structured illumination data;
However, the examiner takes official notice this would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing;
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Valdes as modified by Drori and Ghijsen with extracting tissue optical properties from structured illumination data because this would be trivial for one of ordinary skill in the art and would aid in the mapping of the blood flow within the sample by adjusting for the noise those tissue optical properties cause in the measurement.
Regarding Claim 31, Valdes as modified by Drori and Ghijsen discloses the aforementioned. Further, Ghijsen discloses a collimating lens (Section 2.1 instrumentation). Ghijsen discloses each of the lasers are collimated by a lens
a flat mirror for reflecting light from the collimating lens toward a micromirror window of the DMD (See fig. 1). As shown both lasers are reflected from a mirror into the optical path, in combination with Valdes and Drori it would be obvious that this optical train would take the light to the DMD for scanning. Thus, the limitation is met;
and a linear polarizer (Fig. 1, Section 2.1 instrumentation). A wire mesh polarizer is a linear polarizer; and
a long-pass filter in front of the detector (Fig. 1, Section 2.1 instrumentation). Ghijsen discloses using a hot mirror to combine the beams and labels is a low pass in the figure. Low pass is another term for long pass and the mirror acts as a filter thus meeting the limitation;
Further, Valdes discloses a lens to maintain the speckle size to pixels size camera (Section 2.2 Transmission Geometry, Pg 2775. 1st Paragraph) but fails to explicitly disclose a zoom lens on the camera;
However, the examiner takes official notice that one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would know to use an adjustable zoom lens on the camera;
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Valdes as modified by Drori with a zoom lens on the camera because this allows one to adjust the magnification of the speckles on the camera to maintain the desired speckle size thus improving the accuracy of the measurement.
Claim(s) 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Valdes in view of Drori and Ghijsen and further in view of Bergonzi et al (Karla M Bergonzi, Adam Q Bauer, Patrick W Wright, Joseph P Culver, Mapping Functional Connectivity Using Cerebral Blood Flow in the Mouse Brain Journal of Cerebral Blood Flow & Metabolism, Volume 35, Issue 3, March 2015, Pages 367-370 © 2015 ISCBFM, Article Reuse Guidelines https://doi.org/10.1038/jcbfm.2014.211)(Bergonzi)
Regarding Claim 26, Valdes as modified by Drori and Ghijsen discloses the aforementioned but fails to explicitly disclose utilizing a stack of reconstructed cerebral blood flow images over time to extract functional connectivity (FC) maps;
However, Bergonzi discloses utilizing a stack of reconstructed cerebral blood flow images over time to extract functional connectivity (FC) maps (Abstract);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Valdes as modified by Drori and Ghijsen with utilizing a stack of reconstructed cerebral blood flow images over time to extract functional connectivity (FC) maps because this is useful for diagnostics of disesases involving the brain functionality.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 25 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
As to Claim 25 the prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious defining automatically adjusted detection bands based on the identified key characteristics of the scanning source to ensure a consistent source-detector separation, in combination with the rest of the limitations of the claim.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHON COOK whose telephone number is (571)270-1323. The examiner can normally be reached 11am-7pm.
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, Kara Geisel can be reached at 571-272-2416. 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.
/JONATHON COOK/Examiner, Art Unit 2877 May 30, 2026
/Kara E. Geisel/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights