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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 5th February 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The Amendments filed 26th January 2026 have been entered. Claims 1-23 are pending with Claims 13-23 withdrawn from consideration. Applicant has amended Claims 1 & 13.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-12 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.
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.
Claim 2 is 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.
Claim 2 ‘a SWIR light source’, it is unclear whether this is the same SWIR light source as previously recited in Claim 1, or if it is intended to be a new SWIR light source limitation, rendering Claim 2 indefinite. For examination it will be treated as the same SWIR light source as in Claim 1.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3 & 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20180306661 A1 to Stacey in view of US 20190046102 A1 to Kushnir et al. (hereinafter, Kushnir) in further view of SWIR Imaging 101: What Can It Do For You?, https://rjwilson.com/swir-imaging-101-what-can-it-do-for-you/, Imaging Components for Industry & Science, R.J. Wilson, Inc. (hereinafter, Wilson).
Regarding Claim 1, Stacey discloses an automatic fluid output measurement system (Stacey: Abstract), comprising:
a fluid output measurement device having a housing including a back plate (Stacey: Para. [0006]-[0007]; Fig. 2) supporting a camera and a light source (Stacey: Para. [0008]; Para. [0013]; Fig. 2), and a shield extending parallel to the back plate (Stacey: Para. [0007]; Fig. 2),
wherein the housing is configured to couple with a collection container between the back plate and the shield (Stacey: Para. [0007]); and
an image processing device disposed within the housing and communicatively coupled to the camera (Stacey: Para. [0006]), the image processing device configured to determine a volume of fluid disposed within the collection container based on a fluid level of the collection container (Stacey: Para. [0006]),
Stacey does not explicitly disclose that the housing is configured to suspend the collection container; the camera being a short wave infrared (“SWIR”) camera and the light source being a SWIR light source; the fluid level determined by detecting SWIR electromagnetic radiation reflected off of the collection container, wherein the SWIR electromagnetic radiation is emitted by the SWIR light source the reflected SWIR electromagnetic radiation is detected by the SWIR camera.
However, Kushnir teaches a housing configured to suspend a collection container (Kushnir: Fig. 7A; Para. [0168]).
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have found it obvious to modify the housing of Stacey to include a top plate and clamp as taught by Kushnir to suspend the collection container to allow a clinician easy access to the device, the fluid collection container and associated fluid conduits used to collect the fluid from the patient. (Kushnir: Para. [0137]).
Further, Wilson teaches a SWIR camera and a SWIR light source (Wilson: SWIR Vision System and Cameras Provide section), fluid level determined by detecting SWIR electromagnetic radiation reflected off of a container (Wilson: Liquid Levels & Liquid or Adhesive Presence section), wherein the SWIR electromagnetic radiation is emitted by the SWIR light source the reflected SWIR electromagnetic radiation is detected by the SWIR camera (Wilson: Liquid Levels & Liquid or Adhesive Presence section).
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have found it obvious to modify the system of Stacey by including a SWIR camera and SWIR light source as taught by Wilson because the addition of a SWIR camera and SWIR light source in order to detect or differentiate clear liquids, contamination, liquid coating coverage, and clear adhesive presence on surfaces (Wilson: Liquid Levels & Liquid or Adhesive Presence section) and it would only require the routine skill of simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results (MPEP 2143 I. B.) in this case the camera and light source of Stacey with the SWIR camera and SWIR light source of Wilson.
Regarding Claim 2, Stacey in view of Kushnir in further view of Wilson discloses the automatic fluid output measurement system according to claim 1. Stacey is silent on the light source being a SWIR light source.
However, Wilson teaches a SWIR light source configured to emit short wave infrared electromagnetic radiation onto the collection container (Wilson: Liquid Levels & Liquid or Adhesive Presence section).
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have found it obvious to modify the system of Stacey by using a SWIR camera and SWIR light source as taught by Wilson in order to detect or differentiate clear liquids, contamination, liquid coating coverage, and clear adhesive presence on surfaces (Wilson: Liquid Levels & Liquid or Adhesive Presence section).
Regarding Claim 3, Stacey in view of Kushnir in further view of Wilson discloses the automatic fluid output measurement system according to claim 1. Stacey further discloses comprising: a second camera communicatively coupled to the image processing device (Stacey: Para. [0033], [0035]).
Regarding Claim 6, Stacey in view of Kushnir in further view of Wilson discloses the automatic fluid output measurement system according to claim 1. Stacey is silent on the camera being a SWIR camera.
However, Wilson further teaches wherein the SWIR camera is further configured to image the collection container using one or more of SWIR, medium wave infrared radiation ("MWIR"), long wave infrared radiation ("LWIR"), visible light, ultraviolet light, and infrared radiation ("IR") (Wilson: SWIR Imaging 101: What Can It Do For You? section; Liquid Levels & Liquid or Adhesive Presence section).
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have found it obvious to modify the system of Stacey by using a SWIR camera and SWIR light source as taught by Wilson in order to detect or differentiate clear liquids, contamination, liquid coating coverage, and clear adhesive presence on surfaces (Wilson: Liquid Levels & Liquid or Adhesive Presence section).
Regarding Claim 7, Stacey in view of Kushnir in further view of Wilson discloses the automatic fluid output measurement system according to claim 1. Stacey further discloses wherein the collection container includes one or more graduated markings configured to provide a high contrast graduated marking relative to the collection container when imaged by the camera (Stacey: Para. [0035]).
Stacey is silent on the camera being a SWIR camera.
However, Wilson teaches a SWIR light source configured to emit short wave infrared electromagnetic radiation onto the collection container (Wilson: Liquid Levels & liquid or Adhesive Presence section).
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have found it obvious to modify the system of Stacey by using a SWIR camera and SWIR light source as taught by Wilson in order to detect or differentiate clear liquids, contamination, liquid coating coverage, and clear adhesive presence on surfaces (Wilson: Liquid Levels & Liquid or Adhesive Presence section).
Regarding Claim 8, Stacey in view of Kushnir in further view of Wilson discloses the automatic fluid output measurement system according to claim 1. Stacey is silent on a top plate configured to suspend the collection container.
However, Kushnir teaches including a top plate, wherein the collection container is configured to be suspended from the top plate (Kushnir: Fig. 7A; Para. [0168]).
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have found it obvious to modify the housing of Stacey to include a top plate and clamp as taught by Kushnir to suspend the collection container to allow a clinician easy access to the device, the fluid collection container and associated fluid conduits used to collect the fluid from the patient. (Kushnir: Para. [0137]).
Regarding Claim 9, Stacey in view of Kushnir in further view of Wilson discloses the automatic fluid output measurement system according to claim 1. Stacey is silent on wherein the housing includes a clamp configured to couple the housing to a supporting structure.
However, Kushnir teaches wherein the housing includes a clamp configured to couple the housing to a supporting structure (Kushnir: Fig. 7A; Para. [0168]).
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have found it obvious to modify the housing of Stacey to include a top plate and clamp as taught by Kushnir to suspend the collection container to allow a clinician easy access to the device, the fluid collection container and associated fluid conduits used to collect the fluid from the patient. (Kushnir: Para. [0137]).
Claim(s) 4-5 & 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stacey in view of Kushnir in view of Wilson in further view of US 20170035342 A1 to Elia et al. (hereinafter, Elia).
Regarding Claim 4, Stacey in view of Kushnir in further view of Wilson discloses the automatic fluid output measurement system according to claim 3. Stacey further discloses a second camera (Stacey: Para. [0033], [0035]), but is silent on the second camera being at least one of a same tilt angle or a same focal length as a SWIR camera.
However, Elia teaches wherein a camera is disposed at least one of a same tilt angle or a same focal length as another camera (Elia: Para. [0118] ‘using two cameras positioned at an angle relative to each other’; Note: ‘at an angle relative to each other’ is interpreted to read on any angle including both cameras being disposed on the same tilt angle).
Applicant’s specification does not appear to provide a reasoning for the same tilt angle such that the positioning would appear to be a design choice. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have found it obvious to modify the system of Stacey to position each camera to be disposed at a same tilt angle, as taught by Elia, rearranging the position of each camera to have a same tilt angle with respect to each other, the rearrangement would require nothing more than ordinary skill and would yield predictable results, in this case for remedial imaging of the collection container. See MPEP 2144.04 V. C.
Regarding Claim 5, Stacey in view of Kushnir in further view of Wilson discloses the automatic fluid output measurement system according to claim 3. Stacey further discloses a second camera (Stacey: Para. [0033], [0035]), but is silent on the second camera being at least one of a different tilt angle or a different focal length as the SWIR camera.
However, Elia teaches wherein a camera is disposed at least one of a different tilt angle or a different focal length as another camera (Elia: Para. [0118] ‘using two cameras positioned at an angle relative to each other’; Note: ‘at an angle relative to each other’ is interpreted to read on any angle including both cameras being disposed on different tilt angles).
Applicant’s specification does not appear to provide a reasoning for the different tilt angles such that the positioning would appear to be a design choice. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have found it obvious to modify the system of Stacey to position each camera to be disposed at a different tilt angle as taught by Elia, rearranging the position of each camera to have a different tilt angle with respect to each other, the rearrangement would require nothing more than ordinary skill and would yield predictable results, in this case for remedial imaging of the collection container. See MPEP 2144.04 V. C.
Regarding Claim 10, Stacey in view of Kushnir in further view of Wilson discloses the automatic fluid output measurement system according to claim 1, Stacey is silent on wherein the image processing device is communicatively coupled to an external computing device.
However, Elia teaches wherein the image processing device is communicatively coupled to an external computing device (Elia: Para. [0101]).
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have found it obvious to modify the system of Stacey to be communicatively coupled to an external computing device to enable further processing and/or presentation on display (Para. [0122]).
Regarding Claim 11, Stacey in view of Kushnir in further view of Wilson discloses the automatic fluid output measurement system according to claim 1. Stacey is silent on wherein the image processing device is configured to determine at least one of a presence of a foreign particle or a concentration of a foreign particle within the collection container.
However, Wilson teaches determining at least one of a presence of a foreign particle or a concentration of a foreign particle within the collection container (Wilson: Liquid Levels & Liquid Adhesive Presence section).
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have found it obvious to modify the system of Stacey by including a SWIR camera and SWIR light source as taught by Wilson because the addition of a SWIR camera and SWIR light source in order to detect or differentiate clear liquids, contamination, liquid coating coverage, and clear adhesive presence on surfaces (Wilson: Liquid Levels & Liquid or Adhesive Presence section).
Wilson is silent on the determination being conducted by the image processing device.
However, Elia teaches the determination being conducted by the image processing device (Elia: Para. [0016]-[0020], [0055]).
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have found it obvious to modify the system of Stacey to include determining a presence of foreign particle or a concentration of a foreign particle within the collection container by the image processing device to further enable analysis and identification of urine constituents (Elia: Para. [0016]-[0019]).
Regarding Claim 12, Stacey in view of Kushnir in further view of Wilson discloses the automatic fluid output measurement system according to claim 1, Stacey is silent on wherein the collection container is in fluid communication with a Foley catheter.
However, Elia teaches wherein the collection container is in fluid communication with a Foley catheter (Elia: Para. [0099]).
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have found it obvious to modify the system of Stacey to be in fluid communication with a Foley catheter as taught by Elia in order to collect urine from a patient for urinary analysis in a conventional manner (Para. [0099]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHAWN CURTIS BROUGHTON whose telephone number is (571)272-2891. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8am-4pm 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, Alexander Valvis can be reached at 571-272-4233. 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.
/SHAWN CURTIS BROUGHTON/Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/PATRICK FERNANDES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791