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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 25, and 26 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. the newly recited elements “wavelength dependent polarization filters” are not supported by the specification and is considered new matter.
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.
Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term “wavelength dependent polarization filters” in claims 1, 25, and 26 is used by the claim to mean “polarizing a specific wavelength,” while the accepted meaning is “polarization filters polarize light at the same wavelength as the wavelength received, it has the same wavelength as the unpolarized light, it only changes the orientation of the light.” The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 7-9, 11-17, AND 22-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1/a2 as being anticipated by U. S. Publication No. 2016/0157725 to Munoz.
Regarding Claim 1, 25, and 26, Munoz teaches a method, system and program for multispectral sample analysis comprising: providing at least two excitation light wavelengths to a material sample, wherein the material sample exhibits absorption characteristics along the Red-Green-Blue (RGB) light wavelength spectrum (para 025 teaches multiple wavelength light source; para 034 teaches an rgb sensor); measuring output values of an RGB sensor, wherein the measuring detects the absorption characteristics of the material sample, and wherein the absorption characteristics are in response to the at least two excitation light wavelengths; and generating an indication of composition of the material sample, wherein the indication is based on interpreting the output values that were measured (fig. 11 and para 0107-0109 teaches indication based on interpretation of measured values).
Regarding Claim 2, 7, and 8, Munoz teaches providing a third excitation light wavelength and measuring an additional output value of the RGB sensor (para 034 teaches a rgb sensor).
Regarding Claim 3, Munoz teaches that the at least two excitation light wavelengths and the third excitation light wavelength are at least 100nm apart from each other (para 025, 031, 017-073 teaches multiple excitation wavelengths are at least 100 nm apart).
Regarding Claim 9, Munoz teaches that the RGB sensor and the additional RGB sensor provide a left and a right stereoscopic sensor image (para 0067 teaches stereoscopic imaging).
Regarding Claim 11-12, Munoz teaches that the RGB sensor and the additional RGB sensor are each polarized using polarization filters (para 0107 teaches polarizing filters).
Regarding Claims 13-15, Munoz teaches that the polarization filters provide polarization below a 700nm wavelength (para 0107 teaches polarization below 700 nm).
Regarding Claim 16, Munoz teaches that the wavelength of light that is non- polarized is 940nm light.
Regarding Claim 17, Munoz teaches that the polarization filters enable a depth of scattering analysis (para 079, 085, 0107 teaches depth scattering analysis).
Regarding Claim 22-23, Munoz teaches that the indication enables a wound assessment (para 110 and 111 teaches wound analysis).
Regarding Claim 24, Munoz teaches that the wound assessment is repeated over time and enables a wound care treatment plan (para 122 teaches a treatment plan).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/28/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Munoz reference does not teach “wavelength dependent polarization filters”. Examiner would like to point out that polarization filters polarize light at the same wavelength as the wavelength received, it has the same wavelength as the unpolarized light, it only changes the orientation of the light, as such the claim limitations are indefinite and previous rejection is maintained and made FINAL.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 SANJAY CATTUNGAL whose telephone number is (571)272-1306. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5 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, Keith Raymond can be reached on 571-270-1790. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SANJAY CATTUNGAL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3798