DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on June 27, 2025 has been entered. The Examiner acknowledges the amendments to claims 1 and 10, and the cancellation of claim 2. Claims 1 & 3-15 are currently pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks, filed June 27, , with respect to previous rejection of claims 1-9 under 35 USC 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The previous rejection of claims 1-9 under 35 USC 112(b) has been withdrawn.
Regarding the rejection of the claims under 35 USC 103, Applicant argues that Abedini fails to teach or suggest an image acquisition system comprising at least one camera of a first type and at least one camera of a second type, wherein the first type of camera(s) is/are configured to operate independently of the second type of camera(s), that the at least one camera of the first type is a passive stereo camera, an active stereo camera with a structured light source or laser, a time-of-flight (ToF) camera, or a combination of a LIDAR and a single camera, analyzing and triggering processes across body regions using a dual-camera system, and further that Abedini fails to disclose lighting elements that are attached to ends of a support of a displacement element.
Abedini teaches an image acquisition system 24, 116 attached to a support of the displacement element (see Abedini, fig. 3, Col. 5, lines 23-37, 53-63) that comprises at least one camera of a first type and at least one camera of a second type (i.e., the cameras include fiber optics, imaging chips or CCD cameras, which are each different camera types) (see Abedini, Col. 5, lines 53-63), wherein the lighting elements are attached to a frame that is secured to a robotic arm (see Abedini, fig. 3, Col. 5, lines 53-67, Col. 6, lines 1-7). Further, Abedini teaches the at least one camera of said first type is configured to operate independently of said at least one camera of said second type because each of the cameras can be adjusted by a controller module, therefore they are each operable independently of each other (see Abedini, Col. 7, lines 52-64). Therefore, Abedini does teach an image acquisition system comprising at least one camera of a first type and at least one camera of a second type, wherein the first type of camera(s) is/are configured to operate independently of the second type of camera(s).
Applicant further argues that Abedini fails to teach a light confinement chamber and a polarization filter. The Examiner respectfully disagrees with this argument, because Abedini further teaches each of the lighting elements comprises a light emitting diode (LED) with a light confinement chamber (see Abedini, Col. 5, lines 53-63, fig. 3 & 5), and the Wiest reference was instead used to teach the polarization filter (see Wiest, par 0041). Therefore, Applicant’s argument that Abedini fails to teach a light confinement chamber and a polarization filter is unpersuasive.
Moreover, Applicant argues that the recited references fail to teach a stereoscopic and dermatoscopic camera. Wiest teaches a dermatoscope and elevation measuring tool that comprises a camera system that obtains microscopic recordings of an image area of a user, and further comprises CCD sensors integrated into the housing of the dermatoscope to act as surface sensors of the dermatoscope to permit good measurement results of an imaging area of a patient (see Wiest, par 0032, 0047). Abedini teaches the cameras using in the system of Abedini are CCD cameras, wherein multiple cameras are being used to generate a 3D image (see Abedini, Col. 5, lines 53-63). However, the examiner agrees that the combination of Abedini as modified by Wiest and Oz fails to teach a first type of camera comprises a stereoscopic camera or two cameras configured to operate as a stereoscopic camera and a second type of camera that comprises a dermatoscopic camera, wherein the camera of the first type is a passive stereo camera, an active stereo camera with a structured light source or laser, a time-of-flight camera, or a combination of a LIDAR and a single camera. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of applicant’s arguments and amendments, and newly found prior art references.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: a displacement element in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. As described in the specification the displacement element includes an articulable or pivotable element.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 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) 10, 12 & 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent 9980649 --as previously cited--, hereinafter referenced as "Abedini" in view of US Patent Application Publication 20160275681, hereinafter referenced as “D’Alessandro”.
With respect to claim 10, Abedini teaches a method for checking skin lesions (see Abedini, fig. 2, Col. 4, lines 39-67, Col. 5, lines 1-17, lines 49-52), comprising:
a) accommodating a user to be examined within an enclosed chamber of a dermatoscopy device (i.e., the user is enclosed in the device for examination) (see Abedini, fig. 2);
b) moving, via a displacement element 50, 262 (i.e., a robot arm of a scanner of the device comprises cameras for scanning locations of the body of a user) of the dermatoscopy device (see Abedini, fig. 6, Col. 7, lines 27-35), an image acquisition system of the dermatoscopy device 24, 116 (i.e., image capture sensors/cameras) towards different body parts of a given body side of the user (see Abedini, figs. 2 & 3, Col. 4, lines 63-67, Col. 5, lines 1-7, 23-37 & lines 64-67, Col. 5, lines 1-7), the image acquisition system comprising at least one camera of a first type and at least one camera of a second type (see Abedini, fig. 6, Col. 7, lines 36-64, Col. 7, lines 65-67, Col. 8, lines 1-3), and the displacement element comprising an articulable or pivotable element (i.e., a robot arm of a scanner of the device comprises cameras for scanning locations of the body of a user) (see Abedini, fig. 6, Col. 7, lines 27-35);
c) using the least one camera of the first type of the image acquisition system, to acquire one or more images of the different body parts of the user (see Abedini, figs. 2 & 3, Col. 4, lines 63-67, Col. 5, lines 1-7); the at least one camera of the first type comprising a stereoscopic camera or two cameras operating as a stereoscopic camera, and the acquired one or more images being stereoscopic images that are acquired under controlled lighting conditions (i.e., the cameras include fiber optics, imaging chips or CCD cameras, wherein multiple cameras are being used to generate a 3D image, therefore the plurality of CCD cameras are configured to operate as a stereoscopic camera) (see Abedini, Col. 5, lines 53-63);
d) using a computing unit 200 (i.e., a processing system) (see Abedini, fig. 6, Col. 6, lines 43-52), to analyze the acquired stereoscopic images by executing a scanning algorithm that checks whether any one of a plurality of skin structures included in the stereoscopic images fulfills a given criteria (i.e., a controlling program or algorithm is used to move the robot arm depending on regions of interest or a type of analysis to be performed, such as performing base or reference scans and scans selectively at regions of interest such as moles found in the reference scan) (see Abedini, Col. 5, lines 8-17 & lines 53-63);
e) upon detecting that a given one of the plurality of skin structures of a given body region fulfills the given criteria, using the computing unit to execute a motion algorithm to automatically move the displacement element towards the given body region (i.e., during a base or reference scan, if skin structures that are regions of interest are identified, such as moles, lesions, or blemishes, the region of interest is selectively further scanned to observe the moles, lesions, or blemishes) (see Abedini, Col. 5, lines 8-17 & lines 38-52);
f) in response to a triggering order from the computing unit using the at least one camera of the second type of the image acquisition system, at a determined distance, to acquire at least one image of the given skin structure (see Abedini, Col. 7, lines 27-35);
g) providing, by the computing unit, the acquired at least one dermatoscopic image via a display of the computing unit, a user interface, or a printing device (see Abedini, Col. 6, lines 43-52);
step b) being performed for all the body sides of the user (see Abedini, figs. 2 & 3, Col. 4, lines 63-67, Col. 5, lines 1-7).
Abedini fails to teach the at least one camera of said first type is a stereoscopic camera or two cameras configured to operate as a stereoscopic camera, that the at least once camera of the second type is a dermatoscopic camera, and that the dermatoscopic image is provided using the computing unit.
D’Alessandro teaches methods and an apparatus for identifying skin features of interest wherein a system 100 for capturing and processing images comprises an image capture system 110 that includes 2D and 3D image capture elements for capturing one or more images of all or a portion of a subject (see D’Alessandro, par 0028, 0030, 0036, fig. 1), wherein multiple stereo pairs of cameras are positioned around the body or a portion thereof of the subject for simultaneously capturing multiple images (see D’Alessandro, par 0005, 0036). The system 100 further comprises a dermatoscope 180 that is used to capture close-up images of skin areas or skin features of interest of the subject, and the dermatoscope can advantageously be used with the image capture system 110 to efficiently and effectively identify, isolate and compare skin features of interest (see D’Alessandro, 0002, 0005-0009, 0032-0036, 0059, 0065). Furthermore, the dermatoscope 180 is in communication with a processing module 140 and can provided images with meta-data associated with the images (see D’Alessandro, par 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 system of Abedini such that the at least one camera of said first type is a stereoscopic camera or two cameras configured to operate as a stereoscopic camera, and that the at least once camera of the second type is a dermatoscopic camera, wherein the dermatoscopic image is provided using the computing unit because the combination of both camera types permits the identification, isolation, and comparison of skin features of interest in images derived from both camera types, which permits the efficient detection of lesions of the skin of a subject (see D’Alessandro, par 0002-0009, 0028, 0030, 0032-0036, 0059, 0065). Furthermore, the dermatoscope in communication with a computing unit (i.e., a processing module) permits meta-data associated with the dermatoscopic images to be obtained, such as gyroscope/positional data of the dermatoscope that can help determine the orientation of the captured dermatoscopy images with respect to the subject (see D’Alessandro, par 0033).
Abedini as modified by D’Alessandro fails to teach that said determined distance being in a range between 100 mm to 1000 mm from the user.
Nonetheless, 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 dermatoscopy device of Abedini as modified by D’Alessandro such that the determined distance is in a range between 100 mm to 1000 mm from the user because Abedini as modified by D’Alessandro teaches that the robot arm of the scanning device is adjusted such that the arm gets close enough to the body of a user to start capture of images of the body of the user (see Abedini, Col. 7, lines 27-35). Therefore, it would merely be a matter of routine optimization to arrive at a determined distance that is in the range of 100 mm to 1000 mm from the user, since it has been held that "where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP 2144.05 II. Routine Optimization A. Optimization within Prior Art Conditions or Through Routine Experimentation.
With respect to claim 12, Abedini as modified by D’Alessandro teaches the method of claim 10. Abedini further teaches the scanning algorithm comprises at least a neural network, a decision tree-based algorithm or a support vector machine (see Abedini, Col. 8, lines 4-67, Col. 9, lines 1-44).
With respect to claim 15, Abedini as modified by D’Alessandro teaches the method of claim 10. Abedini as modified by D’Alessandro fails to teach that said determined distance is in a range between 300 mm to 600 mm from the user.
Nonetheless, 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 dermatoscopy device of Abedini as modified by D’Alessandro such that the determined distance is in a range between 300 mm to 600 mm from the user because Abedini as modified by D’Alessandro teaches that the robot arm of the scanning device is adjusted such that the arm gets close enough to the body of a user to start capture of images of the body of the user (see Abedini, Col. 7, lines 27-35). Therefore, it would merely be a matter of routine optimization to arrive at a determined distance that is in the range of 300 mm to 600 mm from the user, since it has been held that "where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP 2144.05 II. Routine Optimization A. Optimization within Prior Art Conditions or Through Routine Experimentation.
Claim(s) 1, 3-4, 7-9 & 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent 9980649 --as previously cited--, hereinafter referenced as "Abedini" in view of US Patent Application Publication 20160275681, hereinafter referenced as “D’Alessandro”, and in further view of US Patent Application Publication 20130053701 --as previously cited--, hereinafter referenced as "Wiest".
With respect to claim 1, Abedini teaches a dermatoscopy device 40 for checking skin lesions (i.e., a body scan configuration) (see Abedini, fig. 2, Col. 4, lines 39-67, Col. 5, lines 1-17, lines 49-52) comprising:
an enclosed chamber configured and dimensioned to accommodate a user to be examined on an inside thereof (i.e., the user is enclosed in the device for examination) (see Abedini, fig. 2);
an image acquisition system 24, 116 (i.e., image capture sensors/cameras) configured to acquire images from different body regions of the user (see Abedini, figs. 2 & 3, Col. 4, lines 63-67, Col. 5, lines 1-7, 23-37 & lines 64-67, Col. 5, lines 1-7);
a first lighting element and a second lighting element 118 (i.e., the robotic arm of the device comprises a frame that supports light sources) (see Abedini, fig. 3, Col. 5, lines 23-37 & lines 53-63), each of said first lighting element and said second lighting element comprising a light emitting diode (LED) with a light confinement chamber (see Abedini, Col. 5, lines 53-63, fig. 3);
a computing unit 200 (i.e., a processing system) (see Abedini, fig. 6, Col. 6, lines 43-52) operatively connected to a displacement element 50, 262 (i.e., the computing unit is operatively connected to a robot arm of a scanner of the device) (see Abedini, fig. 6, Col. 7, lines 27-35) and to said image acquisition system (i.e., the computing unit is operatively connected to a robot arm of a scanner of the device that comprises cameras for scanning locations of the body of a user), said computing unit configured to process said acquired images (i.e., images are processed using an image processing module 268) (see Abedini, fig. 6, Col. 7, lines 36-64, Col. 7, lines 65-67, Col. 8, lines 1-3);
said displacement element 50, 262 comprising an articulable or pivotable element and being configured to be moved on axes x, y, z on said inside of said enclosed chamber (i.e., the robot arms can be moved to rotate around multiple axes, such as the x and y axes, and further in the z-axis as three dimensional images are constructed of the body of a user) (see Abedini, Col. 6, lines 35-42, Col. 10, lines 20-27);
said image acquisition system 24, 116 attached to a support (i.e., the scan head of the device comprises a frame that supports the cameras/image capture sensors, and the frame is secured to the robot arm) of said displacement element (see Abedini, fig. 3, Col. 5, lines 23-37, 53-63) and comprising at least one camera of a first type and at least one camera of a second type (i.e., the cameras include fiber optics, imaging chips or CCD cameras) (see Abedini, Col. 5, lines 53-63),
said at least one camera of said first type being configured to operate independently of said at least one camera of said second type (i.e., each of the cameras can be adjusted by a controller module, therefore they are each operable independently of each other) (see Abedini, Col. 7, lines 52-64),
each of said first lighting element and said second lighting element attached to an end of said support of said displacement element (i.e., the lighting elements are attached to the frame that is secured to the robotic arm) (see Abedini, fig. 3, Col. 5, lines 53-67, Col. 6, lines 1-7);
and processing said acquired images comprises:
analyzing, for each one of said different body regions, at least one image acquired by said at least one camera of said first type (i.e., images are captured using the body scanner and are processed using an image processing module) (see Abedini, Col. 7, lines 27-67, Col. 8, lines 1-3);
executing a scanning algorithm configured to detect a plurality of skin structures of a given one of said different body regions in said at least one acquired image and configured to check whether any one of said plurality of detected plurality of skin structures fulfills a given criteria (i.e., a controlling program or algorithm is used to move the robot arm depending on regions of interest or a type of analysis to be performed, such as performing base or reference scans and scans selectively at regions of interest such as moles found in the reference scan) (see Abedini, Col. 5, lines 8-17 & lines 53-63);
upon said scanning algorithm detects that at least one of said plurality of skin structures of a given one of said different body regions fulfills said given criteria, executing a motion algorithm configured to automatically move said displacement element to a corresponding one of said different body regions (i.e., during a base or reference scan, if skin structures that are regions of interest are identified, such as moles, lesions, or blemishes, the region of interest is selectively further scanned to observe the moles, lesions, or blemishes) (see Abedini, Col. 5, lines 8-17 & lines 38-52);
and providing a triggering order to said image acquisition system, and as a result of implementing said triggering order, using said at least one camera of said second type to acquire at a determined distance, at least one image of said detected at least one skin structure of said plurality of skin structures of a given one of said body regions (see Abedini, Col. 7, lines 27-35).
Abedini fails to teach said at least one camera of said first type is a stereoscopic camera or two cameras configured to operate as a stereoscopic camera, that the at least once camera of the second type is a dermatoscopic camera, and that each of said first lighting element and said second lighting element comprises a polarization filter.
D’Alessandro teaches methods and an apparatus for identifying skin features of interest wherein a system 100 for capturing and processing images comprises an image capture system 110 that includes 2D and 3D image capture elements for capturing one or more images of all or a portion of a subject (see D’Alessandro, par 0028, 0030, 0036, fig. 1), wherein multiple stereo pairs of cameras are positioned around the body or a portion thereof of the subject for simultaneously capturing multiple images (see D’Alessandro, par 0005, 0036). The system 100 further comprises a dermatoscope 180 that is used to capture close-up images of skin areas or skin features of interest of the subject, and the dermatoscope can advantageously be used with the image capture system 110 to efficiently and effectively identify, isolate and compare skin features of interest (see D’Alessandro, 0002, 0005-0009, 0032-0036, 0059, 0065).
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 system of Abedini such that the at least one camera of said first type is a stereoscopic camera or two cameras configured to operate as a stereoscopic camera, and that the at least once camera of the second type is a dermatoscopic camera because the combination of both camera types permits the identification, isolation, and comparison of skin features of interest in images derived from both camera types, which permits the efficient detection of lesions of the skin of a subject (see D’Alessandro, par 0002-0009, 0028, 0030, 0032-0036, 0059, 0065).
Abedini as modified by D’Alessandro fails to teach each of said first lighting element and said second lighting element comprises a polarization filter.
Wiest teaches a dermatoscope and elevation measuring tool that comprises a camera system that obtains microscopic recordings of an image area of a user, and further comprises CCD sensors integrated into the housing of the dermatoscope to act as surface sensors of the dermatoscope to permit good measurement results of an imaging area of a patient (see Wiest, par 0032, 0047). Wiest further teaches the optical system of the dermatoscope comprises a cross polarizing filter to reduce reflections of the skin surface that has two portions wherein the polarization directions of the two portions are selected such that the second portion is shifted by 90 degrees from the first portion (see Wiest, par 0041).
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 system of Abedini as modified by D’Alessandro such that each of said first lighting element and said second lighting element comprises a polarization filter because that would improve the system of Abedini as modified by D’Alessandro because a polarization filter within the lighting elements reduces reflections on the skin surface of a user/patient by using cross polarization (see Wiest par, 0041).
Abedini as modified by D’Alessandro and Wiest fails to teach that said determined distance being is in a range between 100 mm to 1000 mm from the user.
Nonetheless, 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 dermatoscopy device of Abedini as modified by D’Alessandro and Wiest such that the determined distance is in a range between 100 mm to 1000 mm from the user because Abedini as modified by D’Alessandro and Wiest teaches that the robot arm of the scanning device is adjusted such that the arm gets close enough to the body of a user to start capture of images of the body of the user (see Abedini, Col. 7, lines 27-35). Therefore, it would merely be a matter of routine optimization to arrive at a determined distance that is in the range of 100 mm to 1000 mm from the user, since it has been held that "where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP 2144.05 II. Routine Optimization A. Optimization within Prior Art Conditions or Through Routine Experimentation.
With respect to claim 3, Abedini as modified by D’Alessandro and Wiest teaches the device of claim 1. Abedini further teaches the displacement element 50, 262 is configured and dimensioned to move on a guiding railway 12,14 of a guiding system, the guiding system being disposed on an interior wall of the enclosed chamber (see Abedini, fig. 2, Col. 4, lines 63-67, Col. 5, lines 1-7).
With respect to claim 4, Abedini as modified by D’Alessandro and Wiest teaches the device of claim 1. Abedini as modified by D’Alessandro and Wiest further teaches the polarization filter has a 90 degree offset with respect to a polarization filter of the dermatoscopic camera (i.e., the dermatoscope comprises a cross polarizing filter to reduce reflections of the skin surface that has two portions wherein the polarization directions of the two portions are selected such that the second portion is shifted by 90 degrees from the first portion) (see Wiest, par 0041).
With respect to claim 7, Abedini as modified by D’Alessandro and Wiest teaches the device of claim 1. Abedini further teaches said displacement element 50, 262 further comprises at least one articulable element configured to allow said displacement element to be moved in a plurality of directions (i.e., the robot arm includes a plurality of linkages that enable the robot arm to have many degrees of freedom to enable full or partial coverage of a body scan) (see Abedini, fig. 2, Col. 4, lines 63-67, Col. 5, lines 1-7).
With respect to claim 8, Abedini as modified by D’Alessandro and Wiest teaches the device of claim 1. Abedini as modified by D’Alessandro fails to teach the given criteria for evaluation of skin of a user is based on an ABCD rule of dermatoscopy based on an asymmetry (A), border (B), color (C) and differential structure (D) of said detected skin structures.
Wiest teaches that a mathematical algorithm for assessing the malignancy of skin structures includes an “ABCD” rule wherein the symmetry, boundary, coloring, and differential structure are used to assess skin structures, and further wherein the dermatoscope uses the ABCD rule as an evaluation means of skin of the user (see Wiest, par 0007 & 0098).
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 system of Abedini as modified by D’Alessandro and Wiest such that the given criteria for evaluation of skin of a user is based on an ABCD rule of dermatoscopy based on an asymmetry (A), border (B), color (C) and differential structure (D) of said detected skin structures because that would improve the system of Abedini as modified by D’Alessandro by permitting it to assess the malignancy of skin structures based on symmetry, boundaries, coloring, and differential structures (see Wiest, par 0007 & 0098).
With respect to claim 9, Abedini as modified by D’Alessandro and Wiest teaches the device of claim 1. Abedini as modified by D’Alessandro and Wiest fails to teach that said determined distance is in a range between 300 mm to 600 mm from the user.
Nonetheless, 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 dermatoscopy device of Abedini as modified by D’Alessandro and Wiest such that the determined distance is in a range between 300 mm to 600 mm from the user because Abedini as modified by D’Alessandro and Wiest teaches that the robot arm of the scanning device is adjusted such that the arm gets close enough to the body of a user to start capture of images of the body of the user (see Abedini, Col. 7, lines 27-35). Therefore, it would merely be a matter of routine optimization to arrive at a determined distance that is in the range of 300 mm to 600 mm from the user, since it has been held that "where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP 2144.05 II. Routine Optimization A. Optimization within Prior Art Conditions or Through Routine Experimentation.
With respect to claim 11, Abedini as modified by D’Alessandro teaches the method of claim 10 (see claim rejection of claim 10 above). Abedini as modified by D’Alessandro fails to teach the given criteria for evaluation of skin of a user is based on an ABCD rule of dermatoscopy based on an asymmetry (A), border (B), color (C) and differential structure (D) of said detected skin structures.
Wiest teaches that a mathematical algorithm for assessing the malignancy of skin structures includes an “ABCD” rule wherein the symmetry, boundary, coloring, and differential structure are used to assess skin structures, and further wherein the dermatoscope uses the ABCD rule as an evaluation means of skin of the user (see Wiest, par 0007 & 0098).
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 system of Abedini as modified by D’Alessandro such that the given criteria for evaluation of skin of a user is based on an ABCD rule of dermatoscopy based on an asymmetry (A), border (B), color (C) and differential structure (D) of said detected skin structures because that would improve the system of Abedini as modified by D’Alessandro by permitting it to assess the malignancy of skin structures based on symmetry, boundaries, coloring, and differential structures (see Wiest, par 0007 & 0098).
Claim(s) 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abedini in view of D'Alessandro and Wiest as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US Patent Application 20120206587 --as previously cited--, hereinafter referenced as "Oz".
With respect to claim 5, Abedini as modified by D’Alessandro and Wiest teaches the device of claim 1. Abedini as modified by D’Alessandro and Wiest fails to teach the device further comprises a positioning unit configured to indicate a position in which the user has to be placed inside the enclosed chamber.
Oz teaches a skin surface imaging system that comprises a body positioning sub-unit that provides instructions regarding the position of a patient with respect to the image sensors, and that further stabilizes the position of the patient with respect to the image sensors (see Oz, par 0062).
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 system of Abedini as modified by D’Alessandro and Wiest such that it comprises a positioning unit configured to indicate a position in which the user has to be placed inside the enclosed chamber because that would improve the system of Abedini as modified by D’Alessandro and Wiest by stabilizing the position of the patient with respect to the image sensors so that quality images are obtained (see Oz, par 0062).
With respect to claim 6, Abedini as modified by D’Alessandro and Wiest teaches the device of claim 3, but fails to teach that the system further comprises a positioning unit.
Oz teaches a skin surface imaging system that comprises a feedback mechanism of the processing unit that is adapted to control the position of the patient during imaging (see Oz, par 0053).
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 system of Abedini as modified by D’Alessandro and Wiest to comprise a positioning unit (i.e., a feedback mechanism that controls the position of the patient) configured to control the position of the patient during imaging because that would improve the system of Abedini as modified by D’Alessandro and Wiest by stabilizing the position of the patient with respect to the image sensors so that quality images are obtained (see Oz, par 0053).
Claim(s) 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abedini in view of D'Alessandro as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of US Patent Application 20120206587 --as previously cited--, hereinafter referenced as "Oz".
With respect to claim 13, Abedini as modified by D’Alessandro teaches the method of claim 10. Abedini as modified by D’Alessandro fails to teach that wherein prior to step b), a positioning unit of the dermatoscopy device indicates a position in which the user has to be placed inside the enclosed chamber.
Oz teaches a skin surface imaging system that comprises a body positioning sub-unit that provides instructions regarding the position of a patient with respect to the image sensors, and that further stabilizes the position of the patient with respect to the image sensors (see Oz, par 0062).
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 system of Abedini as modified by D’Alessandro to comprise a positioning unit configured to indicate a position in which the user has to be placed inside the enclosed chamber because that would improve the system of Abedini as modified by D’Alessandro by stabilizing the position of the patient with respect to the image sensors so that quality images are obtained (see Oz, par 0062).
With respect to claim 14, Abedini as modified by D’Alessandro teaches the method of claim 10. Abedini further teaches the displacement element 50, 262 is configured and dimensioned to move on a guiding railway 12,14 of a guiding system, the guiding system being disposed on an interior wall of the enclosed chamber (see Abedini, fig. 2, Col. 4, lines 63-67, Col. 5, lines 1-7).
Abedini as modified by D’Alessandro fails to teach that wherein prior to step b), a positioning unit moves the user towards an interior wall of the enclosed chamber.
Oz teaches a skin surface imaging system that comprises a feedback mechanism of the processing unit that is adapted to control the position of the patient during imaging (see Oz, par 0053).
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 system of Abedini as modified by D’Alessandro such that it comprises a positioning unit (i.e., a feedback mechanism that controls the position of the patient) configured to control the position of the patient during imaging because that would improve the system of Abedini as modified by D’Alessandro by stabilizing the position of the patient with respect to the image sensors so that quality images are obtained (see Oz, par 0053).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Destiny J Cruickshank whose telephone number is (571)270-0187. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9am-6pm.
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, Charles Marmor II can be reached on (571) 272-4730. 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.
/CHARLES A MARMOR II/Supervisory Patent Examiner
Art Unit 3791
/D.J.C./Examiner, Art Unit 3791