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 Amendment
This office action is responsive to the amendment filed on 6/18/26. As directed by the amendment: claims 1, 4, 6, 8-10, 12, and 13 have been amended, claim 14 has been cancelled, and new claim 16 has been added. Thus, claims 1-13, 15, and 16 are presently pending in this application, claim 15 being withdrawn from consideration.
The amendments to the claims are sufficient to overcome the claim objections from the prior action and the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) from the prior action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-7, 9, 10, 12, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fuji Corporation (EP 3346807; hereinafter “Fuji”).
Regarding claim 1, Fuji discloses a device 10 for image-based support of a user (device of fig. 1-4) comprising: an instrument 20 that is configured to apply a treatment medium at alterable locations in an area to be treated (plasma, par. 0009); an image capture device 24 that is configured to capture the area to be treated (par. 0025); an evaluation device that is configured to determine a treatment trace of the treatment medium relative to the area to be treated from data of the image capture device (see 82 in fig. 1; par. 0026) and to determine a spatially resolved dosage for the area to be treated based on the treatment trace (see 82 in fig. 1; par. 0027); and a representation device 26 that is configured to optically display the treatment trace and/or the spatially resolved dosage in relation to the area to be treated for the user (see 82 in fig. 1; par. 0026-0027), wherein the evaluation device is communicatively connected with a supply unit of the instrument, whereby the evaluation device is configured to determine the spatially resolved dosage in addition based on measurement parameters that are transmitted by the supply unit to the evaluation device (see fig. 4 which illustrates the communicative coupling of all relevant elements, including the evaluation device and supply unit, and par. 0028 for description of calculations based on measurement parameters, the measurement parameters being fully capable of being communicated through any communicative coupling of the system illustrated in fig. 4).
Regarding claim 2, Fuji discloses the treatment medium that can be applied is a plasma (par. 0009).
Regarding claim 3, Fuji discloses the image capture device is configured to capture the area to be treated at least partly by an image sequence comprising a multiplicity of individual images (par. 0025-0027 describe capturing images over time).
Regarding claim 4, Fuji discloses the evaluation device is configured to recognize the treatment medium (par. 0036) in the image sequence and to trace it over multiple individual images in the image sequence (par. 0025-0027, 0036).
Regarding claim 5, Fuji discloses the evaluation device is configured to determine a position of the applied treatment medium in a current individual image of the image sequence (par. 0025-0027).
Regarding claim 6, Fuji discloses the evaluation device is configured to determine a position of the head of the instrument in the current individual image of the image sequence (par. 0025-0027).
Regarding claim 7, Fuji discloses the evaluation device is configured to recognize the treatment medium in data of the image capture device based on a color and/or shape feature based on a color value range (wavelengths in the ultraviolet range, par. 0036).
Regarding claim 9, Fuji discloses the evaluation device is configured to recognize the treatment medium in a search area in the current individual image by means of a search routine, whereby the search area for the treatment medium is modified based on the position, the orientation and/or the dimension of the head (par. 0025-0027, 0036).
Regarding claim 10, Fuji discloses the evaluation device is configured to determine a predicted position of the treatment medium in the current individual image based on a position and/or velocity of the treatment medium from a previous individual image (par. 0025-0027, 0036).
Regarding claim 12, Fuji discloses the evaluation device is configured to recognize reference markers applied in the area of the tissue surface and to assign the treatment trace to the area to be treated in a spatially accurate manner (par. 0025-0027).
Regarding claim 13, Fuji discloses the evaluation device is communicatively connected with a supply unit of the instrument, and further wherein the evaluation device is configured to control the application of the treatment medium by the instrument depending on the local dosage (par. 0028; fig. 4).
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.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fuji in view of Simonovsky et al. (US 20170352164).
Regarding claim 8, Fuji discloses the device as claimed, including tracking information related to head position (see at least par. 0025-0027), except for specifically disclosing the evaluation device configured to recognize the head in data of the image capture device based on a color and/or shape feature or based on a marker attached on the head. However, Simonovsky et al. teaches utilizing shape or color of an instrument being used in order to track its position in image assisted operation (par. 0006). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize shape and/or color in the instrument head of Fuji in order to provide sufficient structure for the head itself to be identified for tracking purposes during imaging, as taught by Simonovsky et al.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fuji in view of Hitachi Medical Corp (JP 2013135738; hereinafter “Hitachi”).
Regarding claim 11, Fuji discloses the device as claimed, except for the evaluation device is configured so that the area to be treated can be defined by the user prior to the application of treatment medium. However, Hitachi teaches configuring a similar evaluation device so that area to be treated is defined by the user prior to treatment (see at least par. 0021). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide sufficient structure and functionality to guide the treatment of Fuji while avoiding accidental treatment outside of the desired treatment area.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fuji in view of Nettersheim et al. (US 20150069911).
Regarding claim 16, Fuji discloses the device as claimed, except for specifically disclosing the measurement parameters comprise at least one of ignition detection, treatment power, output power, current, voltage,resistance, gas flow, and/or gas pressure. However, Nettersheim et al. teaches utilizing a sensor system to collect multiple operating parameters, including pressure in the gas supply unit (abstract, par. 0061), as well as utilizing a flow sensor (par. 0062) and/or current measuring device (par. 0003). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Fuji to utilize other useful measurement parameters such as those taught by Nettersheim et al. for the purpose of further improving the control loop for plasma treatment (par. 0015).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/18/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to Applicant’s argument on pg. of the Remarks that Fuji does not disclose the limitations from previous claim 14 now amended to claim 1, Examiner notes, as cited in the rejection(s), that Fuji discloses utilizing additional measurement parameters as claimed, and the capability to transmit parameters from the supply unit to the evaluation device, and is thus configured in such a way that it is fully capable of performing this function as claimed.
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 NATHAN R PRICE whose telephone number is (571)270-5421. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00am-4:00pm Eastern time.
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, Michael Tsai can be reached at 571-270-5246. 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.
/NATHAN R PRICE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3783
Prosecution Insights