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 .
Response to Arguments
Regarding the 112, 6th claim interpretation, applicant’s amendments have obviated this interpretation, as the claims now recite sufficient structure; therefore the previous 112, 6th claim interpretation has been withdrawn.
Regarding the 102 rejection, applicant’s arguments 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. The examiner agrees that Jing alone fails to teach an adjusting unit including a controller configured to control a manipulator to rotate an optical element about a first or second axis. However, the examiner has found a new prior art reference to teach these amendments; see new 103 below.
For clarity, it is emphasized that Jing explicitly teaches a processor/control unit that can change the focus position of an optical element (“laser acupuncture system provided by the embodiment of the invention, the control unit 3 can be connected with the focusing device 12 to signal for controlling and driving light focusing device 12 mobile, moving through control drive focusing device 12, can change the beam of light spot diameter and the focus position, so as to realize the action area and position of the laser adjustment”), but the reference is silent to a manipulator and controller as well as the functionality that this change of focus position includes rotation of the optical element. However, in the previous rejection of claim 7, DeBenedictis was brought in to teach known optical delivery systems that change/adjust/control the focus position of a light beam to define a specific treatment area and positioning of the light beam, i.e. treatment pattern. Specifically, DeBenedictis teaches “In embodiments wherein the electromagnetic source 110 comprises an optical source, then the delivery system 140 could be an optical scanner, an optical fiber, a patterned mask, mirrors, lenses, a lens array, or a combination thereof. Examples of suitable optical scanners are galvanometer based scanners (Cambridge Technology, Inc., Cambridge, Mass.), polygon scanners, MEMS scanners, counter-rotating scanners and starburst scanners”. The examiner takes the position that galvanometer based scanners inherently/implicitly operate by a controller controlling/adjusting a manipulator (galvanometer motors) to rotate, e.g. pivot, the optical component (mirror) about a first or second axis (x and/or y). The examiner takes the position that such a function is inherent/implicit in all galvanometer based scanners, but in an effort to advance prosecution, the examiner has brought in an additional reference (US 5,065,515 to Iderosa) to explicitly teach the operation/functionality of a galvanometer based scanner, along with evidentiary reference (“How Servo Motors Work”) that servo controlled galvanometric scanners inherently include a controller, i.e. control circuit. See new 103 rejection below for details.
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.
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.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 106621070 to Jing in view of US 2007/0264625 to DeBenedictis and further in view of US 5,065,515 to Iderosa, as evidence by “How Servo Motors Work”.
[Claims 1 and 7] Jing discloses a system (Figs. 1-2) for performing laser acupuncture on a plurality of acupuncture points on a body part of a subject (Abstract), said system comprising:
a frame (“bracket” 1; at least Abstract);
an image processing unit mounted on said frame (“feedback unit” 2 including “image collecting/acquisition device”; at least Abstract), and including
an image capturing device that is configured to capture an image of the body part having the acupuncture points (“the image acquisition device comprises symmetrically set on two CCD image sensors of two side of the acupuncture unit, for collecting the body image of the user”), and
a processor (“control unit” 3) that is configured to generate, based on the image of the body part, a control signal that contains information related to positions respectively of the acupuncture points (“a control unit, connected with the acupuncture unit and said image collecting device signal, for analyzing the image obtained by the image acquisition device, and according to the image analysis result control the acupuncture unit to move relatively to the bracket.” And “and the two CCD image sensor 21 image information with the collected user body meridians and collaterals of human body image matching the information analysis, so as to determine the coordinate information of the acupuncture points of the user, furthermore, the control unit 3 may control the coordinate information acupuncture unit moves, so that the acupuncture unit 1 emits the laser beam focused on the user body acupuncture points”);
a laser unit (“acupuncture unit” 1) mounted on said frame, spaced apart from said image processing unit, and including
a light source (“laser emitter” 11) that is configured to emit a laser beam, and
an optical component (“focusing device” 12) that is located in a path, along which the laser beam travels, and that is configured to direct the laser beam; and
an adjusting unit mounted on said frame, electrically connected to said processor, interconnecting said optical component and said frame, and configured to receive the control signal, and to orient, based on the control signal, said optical component to direct the laser beam to the acupuncture points individually (“the control unit 3 can be connected with the focusing device 12 to signal for controlling and driving light focusing device 12 mobile, moving through control drive focusing device 12, can change the beam of light spot diameter and the focus position, so as to realize the action area and position of the laser adjustment. Further, the control unit 3 can also be connected with the 11 signal of each laser emitter to control driving each laser emitter 11 laser output”).
While Jin teaches a processor that controls an optical element (focusing device 12) to adjust/change the position of the laser beam in order to direct the beam to the acupuncture points individually, Jin fails to explicitly teach the details or structural components of the adjusting unit and how it operates in order to change the focus position to define the treatment area and position of the laser beam, i.e. treatment pattern. However, in the same/similar field of endeavor, specifically dermatological laser treatment of selected targets, DeBenedictis discloses an adjustment unit, i.e. delivery system, that “could be an optical scanner, an optical fiber, a patterned mask, mirrors, lenses, a lens array, or a combination thereof. Examples of suitable optical scanners are galvanometer based scanners (Cambridge Technology, Inc., Cambridge, Mass.), polygon scanners, MEMS scanners, counter-rotating scanners and starburst scanners” (Par 0051). Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Jing to include the adjusting unit/delivery system, i.e. galvanometer based scanner, as taught by DeBenedictis, as this is either combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results OR a simple substitution of one known element, i.e. one type of known delivery system, for another to obtain predictable results, i.e. deliver light to selected targets on the skin by adjusting the focus position of the light.
The examiner contends that a galvanometer based scanner inherently/implicitly includes a controller (control circuit), a manipulator (motor, specifically a galvanometer motor) that is electrically connected to said controller and that is coupled to said optical component (mirror) that receives a control signal from the processor (control unit 3 of Jing) to rotate the optical component about one of a first or second axis (X and/or Y). However, DeBenedictis is silent to these structures and functionality, so Iderosa is brought in to teach these deficiencies. Specifically, Iderosa is a dermatological laser treatment apparatus that uses a galvanometer based scanner (62 and 72; Fig. 4) to direct light to selected locations on the skin. Iderosa details the structure/functionality of the manipulator (scanner 72) and optical component (scanning mirror 62) and how the manipulator rotates the optical component about a first or second axis (arrow 76); Col 4, line 56 to Col 5, line 48. It is noted that Iderosa explicitly discloses a servo-controlled galvanometric scanner which inherently includes a controller, i.e. control circuit (see “How Servo Motors Work”, specifically “Inside a Servo Motor”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the galvanometer based scanner taught by DeBenedictis to include the specific components, i.e. a controller, manipulator and optical element, that function to rotate the optical element about a first or second axis, as taught by Iderosa, as a simple substitution of one known/generic galvanometer based scanner for another/specific galvanometer based scanner, to obtain predictable results (i.e. scan a treatment pattern on the skin).
[Claims 2-5] Jing implicitly/inherently discloses a switch, i.e. in order for a laser to operate it must be able to be turned on/off. Furthermore, “Specifically, the control unit 3 can be an infrared temperature measuring device 22 feedback of temperature information, control the laser output intensity of each laser emitter 11 and/or control of each laser emitter 11 switching operation. so as to realize the real-time situation automatically, pointedly acupuncture and the treatment, and also can avoid scald and so on” appears to explicitly teach a switch that turns the laser on/off. In addition Jing discloses “the control unit 3 may control the coordinate information acupuncture unit moves, so that the acupuncture unit 1 emits the laser beam focused on the user body acupuncture points.” The examiner contends that in order to focus the laser on the predetermined acupuncture points (plural), the laser emission must be capable of being turned on and off intermittently, in order to only treat the acupuncture points and not any unintended targets. Lastly, explicitly disclose pulses of light, which inherently requires a switch to turn on/off the laser to emit pulses.
It is noted that in terms of the specific preset emitting period (on time) and preset break period (off time), any switch is capable of being turned on and off for any amount of time; MPEP 2114.
If applicant disagrees with the examiner’s interpretation of inherency, then an alternative 103 is presented below.
[Claim 6] The adjusting unit is capable of moving the acupuncture unit (including the optical component) in either the on or off state; MPEP 2114.
Claims 2-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jing, DeBenedictis and Iderosa as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2013/0310902 to Richdale.
Jing, DeBenedictis and Iderosa are discussed above, and if it is determined that Jing fails to inherently teach a switch capable of the claimed functions, then Richdale is brought in to cure these deficiencies in Jing. Specifically, Richdale discloses a light/laser acupuncture device that includes a switch (controller 110) that intermittently turns the laser on and off for selected time intervals. The on period can be 0.5 to 1.5 seconds which overlaps applicant’s claimed range; MPEP 2144.05. The off period can also be 0.5 to 1.5 seconds, the examiner contends that this range approaches applicant’s claimed range or is an optimization of a result effective variable; MPEP 2144.05. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of Jing, DeBenedictis and Iderosa to include the switch/controller taught by Richdale, in order to control the on/off periods of light emission to effectively provide laser/light acupuncture treatment.
Claim 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jing, DeBenedictis and Iderosa as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of WO 2012/045918 to Gabert.
[Claim 9] Jing, DeBenedictis and Iderosa are discussed above, but fail to explicitly teach a user interface. However, in the same field of endeavor, Gabert discloses a user interface (7, Fig. 1) for a laser acupuncture device that allows a user to input instructions and parameters with respect to the imaging unit and position of the laser treatment (Abstract). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Jing, DeBenedictis and Iderosa to include the user interface of Gabert as a known component of a similar laser acupuncture system that allows a user to input information and parameters related to the specific locations and laser treatment of acupuncture points to ensure effective and efficient treatment.
[Claim 10] While a power supply is not explicitly shown/taught in Jing, the examiner takes the position that inherently/necessarily such a power supply must exist in order for the device to operate, as electricity is necessary to operate all of the components. If applicant disagrees, the examiner takes official notice that a power supply to provide electricity to electrical/powered components is well-known. Furthermore, Gabert teaches “the device is preferably autonomous and then has its own electric battery. Alternatively, it can be connected to an external power source”. Therefore, the claimed power supply is either inherently/implicitly disclosed by Jing and/or Gabert or it is obvious to include as a well-known/common component to power or operate similar devices.
Claims 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jing, DeBenedictis and Iderosa as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2021/0186610 to Zuo.
Jing, DeBenedictis and Iderosa are discussed above, but fail to explicitly teach a processor configured to utilize a neural network. In the same field of endeavor, specifically laser treatment of the skin using imaging to determine/identify the target and atomically scan/move the laser beam based on the identified target (Pars 0025-26), Zuo discloses the use of a neural network to perform imaging recognition based on the feedback (Pars 0014, 0021, 0063, 0073 and 0083). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify Jing, DeBenedictis and Iderosa to utilize a neural network, as taught by Zuo, as a known way to effectively and efficiently identify the targets of laser radiation based on image recognition.
As discussed above, in the claim interpretation section, the specific neural network is not currently required by the claims. Therefore, any processor that is configured to utilize any neural network is also configured to utilize the specific neural network claimed. If applicant disagrees with this position, see alternative 103 rejection for claims 11, 14 and 15 below.
Regarding claims 12 and 13, even if it is determined that the specifics of the neural network are required (which the examiner does not concede), the examiner takes official notice that a GAN, u-NET and Patch-GAN are common/known types of machine learning/neural networks that would be obvious to use, as a simple substitution of one known type of neural network for another to obtain predictable results.
Claims 11, 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jing, DeBenedictis and Iderosa as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zuo in further view of WO 2019/237137 to Ritzberger.
Jing, DeBenedictis, Iderosa and Zuo are discussed above, but fail to explicitly discloses the claimed technique of using markers and obtaining specific orientations according to the markers. Ritzberger discloses such a technique in order to identify/determine the target points for laser acupuncture (Abstract; Fig. 3). Specifically Ritzberger teaches:
“For a particularly simple determination of stimulation points on the body surface of the test subject, which respond effectively to stimulation, provision can be made for the determination of the points
- Images of predetermined structures, in particular ear structures, are detected in the recorded image of the surface of the body region to be stimulated,
Matches of the structures detected in the image with reference structures specified in the reference are found,
- A transformation is determined that maps the structures into one of the known ones
Position of the reference structures in the reference transferred corresponding standard orientation,
- By applying the transformation to the reference stimulation points, those points in the image of the body region are determined whose relative position on the image corresponds to the relative position of the reference stimulation points on the reference.
In order to exactly determine the points to be stimulated on the body surface of the test subject, it can be provided that stimulation points to be stimulated, their relative position on the surface, are determined by means of a predetermined transformation rule, which can be specified in particular by a camera model of the camera capturing the image the body region corresponds to the relative position of the points in the image.”
The examiner interprets this as the same paired image to image translation as claimed by applicant.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device taught by Jing, DeBenedictis, Iderosa and Zuo, specifically modifying the neural network, to include the model taught by Ritzberger in order to effectively identify acupuncture points for laser treatment.
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 Lynsey C Eiseman whose telephone number is (571)270-7035. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday and alternating Fridays 7 to 4 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, David Hamaoui can be reached at 571-270-5625. 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.
/LYNSEY C Eiseman/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3796