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 .
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “detector module”, “transmission module”, “power source module”, in claims 1, 3, and 10.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
Para 008, 022, and 039 teaches hardware structure for the modules mentioned above.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 7, 8, and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U. S. Publication No. 2017/0281014 to Von Luehmann et al. in view of U. S. Publication No. 2019/0201691 to Poltorak.
Regarding Claim 1, Von teaches a wearable fNIRS brain imaging system, comprising: a light source-photoelectric detector module, a control and wireless transmission module, a power source module, and an upper computer, wherein the light source-photoelectric detector module further comprising at least one light source-photoelectric detector assembly, wherein each light source- photoelectric detector assembly further comprising a light source probe and a photoelectric detector (fig. 1, 2, 4a, para 033, 035, 038, teaches NIR imaging of the brain, with light source, detector, power source module), wherein the control and wireless transmission module adopts an ARM, DSP or FPGA as a main control chip (para 055 teaches an ARM chip), wherein the main control chip drives the light source-photoelectric detector module to operate and wirelessly transmits signals to the upper computer by means of a built- in WIFI or Bluetooth module (para 058 teaches a Bluetooth module), wherein the power supply module supplies power to the light source-photoelectric detector module and the control and wireless transmission module, wherein the upper computer receives the signal output by the control and wireless transmission module and performs signal processing and analysis (fig. 2 and claim 2 teaches wireless transmission of data for further processing).
Von teaches all of the above claimed limitations but does not expressly teach that the light source probe and the photoelectric detector are connected through a telescopic pull rod, wherein the telescopic pull rod is capable of horizontally and vertically rotating around the photoelectric detector, wherein the light source probe is capable of rotating in three directions around the telescopic pull rod, wherein the telescopic pull rod is provided with at least one limiting hole for adjusting the distance between the light source probe and the photoelectric detector.
Poltorak teaches adjusting means adjusting the distance between the light source and detector (figs. 43-47 teaches adjusting means for adjusting the distance between light source and detector using the band).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Von with a setup for adjusting distance between light source and detector as taught by Poltorak would result in varying the imaging parameters based on the patient, further more different adjusting means are obvious variants.
Regarding Claim 7, Von teaches that the light source-photoelectric detector assembly further comprising a light emitting diode, a telescopic pull rod and an avalanche photodiode (figs. 1, 2, 4a teaches light emitting diode; para 0133 teaches an avalanche photo diode).
Regarding Claim 8, Von teaches multiple light source probes, and multiple photoelectric detector (figs. 1, 2, and 4a teaches multiple light source and detectors).
Regarding Claim 10, Von teaches that the power supply module adopts a lithium battery to supply power (para 0050 teaches a Li-ion battery).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-6, 9, and 11 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the closest prior art of record are U. S. Publication No. 2017/0281014 to Von Luehmann et al. in view of U. S. Publication No. 20125/0134405 to Akbari et al.; U. S. Publication No. 2019/0201691 to Poltorak; U. S. Patent No. 9,946,344 to Ayaz et al. none of the prior art alone or in combination teaches “one end of the telescopic pull rod is connected to the casing of the photoelectric detector by means of the dual-shaft hinge, wherein an angle formed between the light source probe and the photoelectric detector is adjusted by means of the dual-shaft hinge, wherein another end of the telescopic pull rod is connected to the casing of the light source probe by means of the spherical hinge, and the light source probe emits light perpendicular to a user's head through the spherical hinge”.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SANJAY CATTUNGAL whose telephone number is (571)272-1306. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5 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, Keith Raymond can be reached at 571-270-1790. 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.
/SANJAY CATTUNGAL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3798