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 .
1. Claims 1-4 are currently pending in this application.
Claims 1 and 4 are amended as filed on 09/10/2025.
Claim 5 is canceled as filed on 09/10/2025.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thatcher et al. (Pre-Grant Publication No. US 2023/0148951 A1), hereinafter Thatcher, in view of Sostek et al. (Pre-Grant Publication No. US 2015/0011892 A1), hereinafter Sostek, and in further view of Urklinski et al. (Pre-Grant Publication No. US 2022/0335596 A1), hereinafter Urk.
2. With respect to claim 1, Thatcher taught an apparatus for analyzing burn injuries (0024), comprising: a smartphone having a visible light camera (0006); an IR camera (0076); the smartphone collecting visible light video from the visible light camera and IR signal video from the IR camera of a burn injury while moving the visible light camera and the IR camera over the burn injury (0083, where the imaging system is movable in accordance with 0109); a computing device using the video to create a 3D surface model (0066 & 0072); the computing device calculating burn area using machine vision methods on the 3D surface model (0122).
However, Thatcher did not explicitly state that the computing device performed overlaying thermal information from the IR video signal onto the 3D surface model and analyzing temperature with thermal information on the 3D surface model. On the other hand, Sostek did teach that the computing device overlaying thermal information from the IR video signal onto the 3D surface model (0065. For more detail, it can be seen that the generated IR image that analyzes the burn is overlayed in accordance with 0078. Likewise, the resulting image can be a 3D surface model in accordance with 0102) and analyzing temperature with thermal information on the 3D surface model (0065. Furthermore, a more detailed showing of the analysis can be seen in the different identified burn zones of 0066). Both of the systems of Thatcher and Sostek are directed towards image analysis of burn injuries and therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing of the invention, to modify the teachings of Thatcher, to utilize thermal evaluation, as taught by Sostek, as Thatcher likely already performs said features but it is not explicitly stated.
However, while Thatcher teaches moving the IR camera and the visible light camera together by obviousness as the imaging system is movable (0109) and the claim is not further limited with respect to moving together, in order to provide a more compact prosecution, it is contended that Thatcher did not explicitly state wherein the visible light camera and the IR camera are attached together in a handheld device sized and configured to be movable by a user over a burn injury, and also moving the visible light camera and the IR camera together. On the other hand, Urk did teach wherein the visible light camera and the IR camera are attached together in a handheld device sized and configured to be movable by a user over a burn injury, and also moving the visible light camera and the IR camera together (0039, where the phone attachment is small such that the phone can still be moved around a burn and can be seen in figure 2b). Both of the systems of Thatcher and Urk are directed towards managing thermal imaging and therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing of the invention, to modify the teachings of Thatcher to utilize mounting an IR and Visible Light camera onto the same platform, as taught by Urk, in order to provide a system that can more easily image the required surfaces.
3. As for claim 2, it is rejected on the same basis as claim 1. In addition, Thatcher taught wherein the computing device is remote from the smartphone (0110).
4. As for claim 3, it is rejected on the same basis as claim 1. In addition, Thatcher taught wherein the computing device is provided within the smartphone (0110).
5. With respect to claim 4, Thatcher taught a method for analyzing burn injuries (0024), comprising the steps of: using a smartphone having a visible light camera and an IR camera (0006 & 0076), running a pre-installed application on the smartphone to collect video and IR signal video of burn injury while moving the visible light camera and the IR camera (0109-0110, the mobile application); transmitting video data to backend software or an external computing device (0110, the remote processing system); using video input to an algorithm to create a 3D surface model (0122); performing calculations on the 3D surface model for predicted burn depth volume (0072); calculating burn area using machine vision methods on the 3D surface model (0072, the area based on calculated disparity).
However, Thatcher did not explicitly state using IR video to overlay thermal information on the 3D surface model, that volume was thermal volume, performing temperature analysis with thermal information on the 3D surface model, calculating healing metrics using the burn area calculation and the temperature analysis calculated above; using pre-determined threshold values and comparing the pre-determined threshold values to the healing metrics to indicate a likelihood of very low healing potential or high healing potential to reach a triage decision. On the other hand, Sostek did teach using IR video to overlay thermal information on the 3D surface model (0065), that volume was thermal volume (0054), performing temperature analysis with thermal information on the 3D surface model (0065), calculating healing metrics using the burn area calculation and the temperature analysis calculated above; using pre-determined threshold values and comparing the pre-determined threshold values to the healing metrics to indicate a likelihood of very low healing potential or high healing potential to reach a triage decision (0066, where the different zones are determined and claiming to reach a triage decision is to claim the intended use of the systems). Both of the systems of Thatcher and Sostek are directed towards image analysis of burn injuries and therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing of the invention, to modify the teachings of Thatcher, to utilize thermal evaluation, as taught by Sostek, as Thatcher likely already performs said features but it is not explicitly stated.
However, while Thatcher teaches moving the IR camera and the visible light camera together by obviousness as the imaging system is movable (0109) and the claim is not further limited with respect to moving together, in order to provide a more compact prosecution, it is contended that Thatcher did not explicitly state that the cameras are together as an assembled single handheld device sized and configured to be movable by a user over a burn injury, and also moving the visible light camera and the IR camera together. On the other hand, Urk did teach that the cameras are together as an assembled single handheld device sized and configured to be movable by a user over a burn injury, and also moving the visible light camera and the IR camera together (0039, where the phone attachment is small such that the phone can still be moved around a burn and can be seen in figure 2b). Both of the systems of Thatcher and Urk are directed towards managing thermal imaging and therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing of the invention, to modify the teachings of Thatcher to utilize mounting an IR and Visible Light camera onto the same platform, as taught by Urk, in order to provide a system that can more easily image the required surfaces.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
6. It is to be noted that the currently applied tertiary reference Urklinski et al. (Pre-Grant Publication No. US 2022/0335596 A1), is different than the previously applied reference Urklinski et al. (Pre-Grant Publication No. US 2023/0079693 A1).
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 JOSEPH L GREENE whose telephone number is (571)270-3730. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 10:00am - 4:00pm.
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, Nicholas R. Taylor can be reached at 571 272-3889. 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.
/JOSEPH L GREENE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2443