DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Notice of Amendment
In response to the amendment filed on 9/25/2025, amended claims 1, cancelled claims 7-9 and 15-16, and new claim 17 are acknowledged. Claims 1-6, 10-14, and 17 are currently pending. The following new and reiterated grounds of rejection are set forth:
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1, 3-5, and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown, Jr. (US Patent No. 4,691,712) (previously cited), further in view of Van Pieterson et al. (US Publication No. 2009/0204100 A1) (previously cited) and Buirley et al. (US Patent No. 4,501,503).
Regarding claim 1, Brown, Jr. teaches a contact thermography kit, comprising:
a plurality of interchangeable thermochromic plates (41) arranged to be placed one at a time in contact with a user, wherein each plate is adapted to assume a graphic pattern (33) as a function of a detected temperature interval, so as to generate a corresponding thermographic image (see Figures 5-9 and col. 6, lines 24-29).
Brown, Jr. teaches a temperature range from 26°C to 38°C rather than the claimed 26.5°C to 34.6°C. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the kit of Brown, Jr. to include a plurality of plates all adapted to measure temperatures between 26.5°C and 34.6°C, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Further, Brown, Jr. does not specifically teach at least six thermochromic plates, wherein each thermochromic plate is configured to detect temperatures within an interval equal to 3 °C. However, Van Pieterson et al. teaches at least six thermochromic plates arranged to be placed in contact with a user (2A-F) (see Figure 3 and [0020]). Buirley et al. teaches each thermochromic plate is configured to detect temperatures within an interval equal to 3 °C (see col. 3, lines 3-8, col. 3, lines 52-56, and col. 4, lines 46-51).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the kit of Brown, Jr. to include at least six thermochromic plates, as disclosed in Van Pieterson et al., so as to measure relative temperature differences between for example infected and healthy skin parts (see Van Pieterson et al.: [0019]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the kit of Brown, Jr. to include each thermochromic plate is configured to detect temperatures within an interval equal to 3 °C, as disclosed in Buirley et al., so as to give precise temperature-dependent color changes with excellent reproducibility, sensitivity, precision and brightness of display (see Buirley et al.: col. 2, lines 57-61).
Regarding claim 3, Brown, Jr. teaches an image acquisition unit (17) arranged to shoot said graphic pattern and acquire said thermographic image (see col. 5, lines 16-26).
Regarding claim 4, it is noted Brown, Jr. does not specifically teach said image acquisition unit is connected to a processing unit arranged for a graphic analysis of cellulite and fat on said thermographic image. However, Van Pieterson et al. teaches an image acquisition unit (“camera”) is connected to a processing unit (9) arranged for a graphic analysis of cellulite and fat on said thermographic image (see [0021]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the kit of Brown, Jr. to include said image acquisition unit is connected to a processing unit arranged for a graphic analysis of cellulite and fat on said thermographic image, as disclosed in Van Pieterson et al., so as to process certain information locally and convert the temperature measurements into a visual signal (see Van Pieterson et al.: [0021]).
Regarding claim 5, Van Pieterson et al. teaches an electronic device comprising said image acquisition unit, wherein said electronic device is a mobile terminal (see Figures 3-4 and [0021]).
Regarding claim 10, Brown, Jr. does not specify the number of thermochromic plates and therefore does not specifically teach at least six thermochromic plates. However, Van Pieterson et al. teaches at least six thermochromic plates (2A-F) (see Figure 3 and [0020]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the kit of Brown, Jr. to include at least six thermochromic plates, as disclosed in Van Pieterson et al., so as to measure relative temperature differences between for example infected and healthy skin parts (see Van Pieterson et al.: [0019]). Neither Brown, Jr. nor Van Pieterson et al. specifically teach the six plates are configured to detect temperatures comprised in respective intervals comprising: L1 for temperatures in the interval AT1 between 26.5°C and 29.6°C; L2 for temperatures in the interval AT2 between 27.5°C and 30.6°C; L3 for temperatures in the interval AT3 between 28.5°C and 31.6°C; L4 for temperatures in the interval AT4 between 29.5°C and 32.6°C; L5 for temperatures in the interval AT5 between 30.5°C and 33.6°C; L6 for temperatures in the interval AT6 between 31.5°C and 34.6°C. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the kit of Brown, Jr. and Van Pieterson et al. to include temperatures comprised in respective intervals comprising: L1 for temperatures in the interval AT1 between 26.5°C and 29.6°C; L2 for temperatures in the interval AT2 between 27.5°C and 30.6°C; L3 for temperatures in the interval AT3 between 28.5°C and 31.6°C; L4 for temperatures in the interval AT4 between 29.5°C and 32.6°C; L5 for temperatures in the interval AT5 between 30.5°C and 33.6°C; L6 for temperatures in the interval AT6 between 31.5°C and 34.6°C, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown, Jr., Van Pieterson et al., and Buirley et al., further in view of Parker (US Patent No. 4,445,787) (previously cited).
Regarding claim 2, it is noted none of Brown, Jr., Van Pieterson et al., or Buirley et al. specifically teach a temperature indicating unit arranged to indicate a choice of the plate to be used, and which provides a temperature indicator having n temperature sensitive fields in said interval between 26.5° and 34.6° centigrade. However, Parker teaches a temperature indicating unit (110) arranged to indicate a choice of the plate to be used, and which provides a temperature indicator having n temperature sensitive fields in said interval between 26.5° and 34.6° centigrade (see col. 6, lines 28-32). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the kit of Brown, Jr., Van Pieterson et al., and Buirley et al. to include a temperature indicating unit arranged to indicate a choice of the plate to be used, and which provides a temperature indicator having n temperature sensitive fields in said interval between 26.5° and 34.6° centigrade, as disclosed in Parker, so as to indicate particular temperature ranges for each housing of a set of devices (see Parker: col. 6, lines 28-32).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown, Jr., Van Pieterson et al., and Buirley et al., further in view of Salmi (US Publication No. 2011/0224562 A1) (previously cited).
Regarding claim 6, it is noted none of Brown, Jr., Van Pieterson et al., or Buirley et al. specifically teach a structure adapted to simultaneously hold, in a predetermined reciprocal position, a plate on one side and the image acquisition unit on the other side. However, Salmi teaches a structure (1) adapted to simultaneously hold, in a predetermined reciprocal position, a plate (LT) on one side (3) and the image acquisition unit (MF) on the other side (5) (see Figures 1a-3 and [0017]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the kit of Brown, Jr., Van Pieterson et al., and Buirley et al.to include a structure adapted to simultaneously hold, in a predetermined reciprocal position, a plate on one side and the image acquisition unit on the other side, as disclosed in Salmi, so as to maintain a consistent distance between the plate and the image acquisition unit.
Claim(s) 11 and 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown, Jr., Van Pieterson et al., and Buirley et al., further in view of Venkataramani et al. (US Publication No. 2018/0000461 A1) (previously cited).
Regarding claim 11, it is noted none of Brown, Jr., Van Pieterson et al., or Buirley et al. specifically teach said one processing unit comprises an input module configured to receive said thermographic image acquired by said image acquisition unit, and a processing module configured to receive said thermographic image from said input module, compare it with an algorithm previously programmed during training step with previously classified thermographic images, and determine a corresponding classification. However, Venkataramani et al. teaches said one processing unit comprises an input module configured to receive said thermographic image acquired by said image acquisition unit, and a processing module configured to receive said thermographic image from said input module, compare it with an algorithm previously programmed during training step with previously classified thermographic images, and determine a corresponding classification (see [0022] and [0033]-[0034]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the kit of Brown, Jr., Van Pieterson et al., and Buirley et al. to include said one processing unit comprises an input module configured to receive said thermographic image acquired by said image acquisition unit, and a processing module configured to receive said thermographic image from said input module, compare it with an algorithm previously programmed during training step with previously classified thermographic images, and determine a corresponding classification, so as to classify an unclassified hot spot as malignant or non-malignant based on a measure of symmetry (see Venkataramani et al.: Abstract).
Regarding claim 13, Venkataramani et al. teaches said processing module is configured to run an artificial intelligence algorithm previously generated by means of a training step starting from said previously classified thermographic images in order to assign said corresponding classification (see [0022] and [0033]-[0034]).
Regarding claim 14, Venkataramani et al. teaches said processing unit comprises an output module configured to output said classification, and wherein said processing unit comprises a feedback module configured to receive from a user a signal representative of an acceptance of said classification output by said output module or a signal representative of a request for a new analysis to replace or supplement the previous one (see [0022] and [0033]-[0034]).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown, Jr., Van Pieterson et al., Buirley et al., and Venkataramani et al., further in view of Marzorati (US Patent No. 5,776,074) (previously cited).
Regarding claim 12, it is noted none of Brown, Jr., Van Pieterson et al., Buirley et al. or Venkataramani et al. specifically teach said processing unit is connected to a database of thermographic images comprising said previously classified thermographic images, wherein said images are classified into one of the following categories: a. Cellulite absent b. Oedematous cellulitis c. Fibrous cellulitis d. Sclerotic cellulitis e. Soft fat; or f. Hard fat. However, Marzorati teaches said processing unit is connected to a database of thermographic images comprising said previously classified thermographic images, wherein said images are classified into one of the following categories: a. Cellulite absent (“Normality”) b. Oedematous cellulitis (“Edema”) c. Fibrous cellulitis (“Micronodules” or “Macronodules”) (d. Sclerotic cellulitis (“Micronodules” or “Macronodules”) e. Soft fat; or f. Hard fat (see Figures 2-3 and col. 2, line 51-col. 3, line 6). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the kit of Brown, Jr., Van Pieterson et al., Buirley et al., and Venkataramani et al. to include said processing unit is connected to a database of thermographic images comprising said previously classified thermographic images, wherein said images are classified into one of the following categories: a. Cellulite absent b. Oedematous cellulitis c. Fibrous cellulitis d. Sclerotic cellulitis e. Soft fat; or f. Hard fat, as disclosed in Marzorati, so as to detect the presence or absence of the thermal signals of cellulite, classified in four principal phases, thus being able to select the most effective treatment in respect of such phases (see Marzorati: col. 2, lines 21-26).
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown, Jr., Van Pieterson et al., and Buirley et al., further in view of Linders et al. (US Publication No. 2018/0132730 A1).
Regarding claim 17, it is noted none of Brown, Jr., Van Pieterson et al., or Buirley et al. specifically teach said processing unit comprises a feedback module configured to retrieve previously archived analyses, thus allowing a chronological comparison thereof and providing objective feedback on the improvement of the microcirculatory conditions of the user. However, Linders et al. teaches said processing unit comprises a feedback module configured to retrieve previously archived analyses, thus allowing a chronological comparison thereof and providing objective feedback on the improvement of the microcirculatory conditions of the user (see [0084], [0092], and [0108]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the kit of Brown, Jr., Van Pieterson et al., and Buirley et al., to include said processing unit comprises a feedback module configured to retrieve previously archived analyses, thus allowing a chronological comparison thereof and providing objective feedback on the improvement of the microcirculatory conditions of the user, so as to detect significant patterns in archives of historical data in order to detect certain conditions, like for example, an ulcer (see Linders et al.: [0092]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/25/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to Applicant’s argument that Van Pieterson actually discloses one sensor only rather than six sensing elements, the Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that Van Pieterson explicitly describes temperature sensing elements 2A-F (i.e. six), which are separate elements as clearly seen in Figure 3.
In response to Applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Specifically, Applicant argues the sensing elements of Van Pieterson are always used together at the same time. However, the rejection does not rely on Van Pieterson to teach this feature, because Brown, Jr. describes “interchanging a series of thermoresponsive plates that range from 26°C to 38°C”. “A claim containing a ‘recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus’ if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim.” MPEP 2114 (II) citing Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Applicant’s arguments that are directed to the newly added subject matter of the amended claims are addressed in the new grounds of rejection as outlined above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEVIN B HENSON whose telephone number is (571)270-5340. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7 AM ET - 5 PM ET.
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, Robert (Tse) Chen can be reached at (571) 272-3672. 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.
/DEVIN B HENSON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791