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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (claims 1-14) in the reply filed on 10/30/25 is acknowledged. Claim 15 is withdrawn from consideration. The election of species requirement between species a-c is withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: “evaluation device” appears to be referring to a limitation recited earlier in the claims, but is not preceded by “the” or “said” to signify antecedent basis. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 10 and 12 are objected to because of the following informalities: parenthetical letters (P) and (B) are included, but these being letters as opposed to numerical references, and not being used consistently with their associated limitations, with no other parenthetical reference characters provided in the claims, may be confusing. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 4, 6, 8-10, 12, and 13 are 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.
Regarding claim 4, “the image sequence” lacks antecedent basis. Note that claim 4 depends directly from independent claim 1, but would find antecedent basis for this limitation in claim 3 if amended to depend therefrom.
Regarding claim 6, “the head” and “the current individual image of the image sequence” lack antecedent basis, the latter of which would find antecedent basis in prior claim 5 if dependent therefrom.
Regarding claim 8, “the head” lacks antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 9, “the current individual image”, “the position”, “the orientation”, and “the dimension” lack antecedent basis. Claim 10 inherits the deficiencies of parent claim 9.
Regarding claim 12, “the tissue surface” lacks antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 13, “the local dosage” lacks antecedent basis.
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, and 12-14 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).
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).
Regarding claim 14, Fuji discloses 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).
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.
Conclusion
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