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
Applicants’ arguments filed 10/9/2025 regarding the 101 rejections made in the previous Non-final rejection (4/9/2025) are found persuasive. The Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 are withdrawn.
Further, applicants arguments regarding the previous rejections are moot in view of a new ground of rejection necessitated by the amendments.
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 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 1, 3-4, 6-7, 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marine (US 20210338148) in view of WO-Marin (WO 2022/238528) .
Regarding Claim 1, Marine teaches A thermal scanning system comprising: a thermal imaging apparatus (Fig.5A, apparatus is made up of elements 102, 104, 128, and 106) including a vertically adjustable thermal imager (Fig.1, Fig.3:116, thermal imager inside housing 104, Fig.5A,5B, and Par.54: The pivotability of the imaging connector 128 may allow the mobile device 102 and the imaging device 104 to be angled as desired, in Fig.5A-5B the thermal imager (116 in 104) is adjustable to be vertical, i.e. (1) from tilted to less tilted (vertical); (2) as it is tilted about the pivot point, the height changes) secured within a housing (Fig.4:116 and Par.58 The imaging device 104 may have components attached together by, or enclosed within, a casing 142, thermal camera in casing 142 of device 104) and configured to scan a region of a body of a user and generate one or more thermal images of the scanned region (Par.45, The systems may capture thermal images of an inspected body part and a reference body part of a person via a thermal camera. The capturing of the thermal images may be simultaneous…The inspected body part may include, for example, a joint, a knee, an ankle, or the like. ), wherein the thermal imager detects and measures the infrared energy of the scanned region (Par.45, a thermogram measures infrared energy); a program including an analysis system to analyze the thermal image(s) of the scanned region and identify one or more areas of inflammation (Par.62, identify an outline of the inspected body part and the reference body part, evaluate temperature differences, and determine that a functional disorder or inflammation of the inspected body part has occurred among other things) and correlate the one or more areas of inflammation to a joint health of the scanned region (Par.64, the status data may also or instead be directly transmitted to a healthcare professional who is assigned to monitor the joints or overall health of the user), wherein the program compares the thermal image(s) to a The remote computer or the remote server may store data including optical and thermal images, files, and user account information. The diagnostic processor 150 may identify an outline of the inspected body part and the reference body part, evaluate temperature differences, and determine that a functional disorder or inflammation of the inspected body part has occurred, compares image to another image of a reference body part); and a screen (Fig.1:103 and Fig.4:152) configured to interface with the user and to communicate the thermal images and joint health information as output (Par.28, display configured to output data indicating that the functional disorder or inflammation of the inspected body par, Par.47, The systems may make recommendations as to next steps to follow based on the presence of an inflammation or functional disorder. The systems may have a database of stored thermograms, which may be viewed by the patient, and Par.63, The output device 152 may be configured to output status data corresponding to the imaging device 104. The status data may include optical and thermal images detected by the imaging device 104 and/or data outputted by the diagnostic processor 150 upon conducting an analysis of the optical and thermal images.).
While Marine does teach comparing an image of the inspected body part to a reference body part (Par.62), Marine does not explicitly teach comparing the thermal image(s) to a set of preprogramed thermal images.
WO-Marin teaches that it is well known to compare thermal image(s) to a set of preprogramed thermal images (Page 9:lines 23-34, Page 18:lines 3-35, using a database containing a plurality of training images... Moreover, for each training image in this database, the degree of joint inflammation is known a priori, such that a joint inflammation score has been assigned to each training image based on the evaluation of patient degree (7”)…In this way, this database of training images serves as a training set for the method. This training phase (8) is followed by a prediction phase (11), in which new test images (different from the training images, and for which the inflammation degree is unknown) are provided to the method in order to determine both their features (7) and patient inflammation score (15’). K-nearest neighbor (k-NN) algorithm compares).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the thermal scanning system taught by Marine with WO-Marins teachings of comparing thermal image(s) to a set of preprogramed thermal images to provide an enhanced system which uses a plurality of trained images to provide a more reliable output and reducing misdiagnoses.
Regarding Claim 3, Marine teaches the thermal imager is provided on a beam (Fig.5A, vertical portion between 106 and 104 is a beam), the beam including a stand at a bottom (Fig.5A:106) end and the screen at a top end (Fig.5A:102 has a screen), wherein the user stands on the stand during operation of the thermal scanning system (Fig.5A:106 and Par.66, The patient 162 may stand on the base unit 106).
Regarding Claim 4, WO-Marin teaches comparing the thermal image with a calibrated database comprising a plurality of graded thermal images of various levels of inflammation to determine the joint health of the scanned region (Page 9:lines 23-34, Page 18:lines 3-35, using a database containing a plurality of training images... Moreover, for each training image in this database, the degree of joint inflammation is known a priori, such that a joint inflammation score has been assigned to each training image based on the evaluation of patient degree (7”)…In this way, this database of training images serves as a training set for the method. This training phase (8) is followed by a prediction phase (11), in which new test images (different from the training images, and for which the inflammation degree is unknown) are provided to the method in order to determine both their features (7) and patient inflammation score (15’). K-nearest neighbor (k-NN) algorithm compares)
Regarding Claim 6, Marine teaches the thermal imager is a thermographic camera (Par.45, thermal camera).
Regarding Claim 7, Marine teaches the thermal imager is an infrared camera (Par.50, The thermal camera 116 may have an optical instrument to record static or dynamic images using infrared radiation in the LWIR).
Regarding Claim 9, the claim recites “A thermal scanning system for marketing a joint health product according to claim 1.” The claims as presently drafted lack distinctness because claim 9 does not introduce any significant limitations beyond those already recited in claim 1. Given the substantial overlap in subject matter and scope, claim 9 is not patentably distinct from claim 1. As a result, any prior art applicable to claim 1 is equally applicable to claim 9, as claim 9 does not provide non-obvious distinction that would warrant separate consideration. Therefore, the rejection of claim 1, based on the cited prior art of Marine and WO-Marin, extends to claim 9 under the same reasoning.
Regarding Claim 10, the claim recites “A thermal scanning system for determining joint health according to claim 1.” The claims as presently drafted lack distinctness because claim 10 does not introduce any significant limitations beyond those already recited in claim 1. Given the substantial overlap in subject matter and scope, claim 10 is not patentably distinct from claim 1. As a result, any prior art applicable to claim 1 is equally applicable to claim 10, as claim 10 does not provide non-obvious distinction that would warrant separate consideration. Therefore, the rejection of claim 1, based on the cited prior art of Marine and WO-Marin, extends to claim 10 under the same reasoning.
Regarding Claim 11, Marine further teaches the housing is configured to place the thermal imager at a predetermined distance from the body of the user (Par.52 the extendable portion 122 may include one or more separate attachments each having different lengths, Par.53, placement location 124 may elevate the placed body parts from the body portion 118. In some embodiments, the elevation of the placement location 124 from the body portion 118 may be adjustable. The placement location 124 may have two resting surfaces 126a,b. The placed body parts may directly contact the resting surfaces 126a,b. The resting surfaces 126a,b may each have a curvature shaped and sized to accommodate the placed body parts while complementing the natural shape of the placed body parts. (length of 122 ensures a predetermined distance from the body part on the resting surface 126)).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marine (US 20210338148) and WO-Marin (WO 2022/238528) in further view of OFFICIAL NOTICE.
Regarding Claim 2, Marine teaches the image is analyzed and an output/analysis is provided (Par.62 and Par.65, The aide 170 may use the output device 152, which may be the mobile device 102 or the imaging device 104, to receive feedback of the analysis (see FIG. 4)) however Marine does not explicitly teach the analyzing an image in substantially real time.
The examiner takes OFFICIAL NOTICE that it is well known in the art for a device to analyze an image in substantially real time.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the thermal scanning system taught by Marine and WO-Marin with the subject matter of the OFFICIAL NOTICE such than an enhanced system is provided which can give substantially real-time feedback such that the patient can have an opportunity to discuss the next steps with the aid or healthcare professional.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marine (US 20210338148) and WO-Marin (WO 2022/238528) in further view of Jin (US20220051379).
Regarding Claim 5, While Marine and WO-Marin teaches identifying joint health from scanned images, the combination does not expressly teach including predicting approximate joint age.
Jin teaches that it is well known in the art to predict approximate joint age from scanned images (Fig.5, Par.77, Par.80, Par.51, For example, if there is a partial region corresponding to a reference image in an input image (or a divided image), the partial region may be a region corresponding to a human body part (eg, a wrist joint) represented by the reference image. At the same time, a human body part (eg, wrist joint) represented by the partial region may be determined to have a bone age (eg, bone age 5 years) indicated by the corresponding reference image. In the present disclosure, the reference image set may be a set of a plurality of reference images divided according to a specific race and / or gender. One reference image set may include reference images for a plurality of body parts and a plurality of bone ages in the corresponding race and/or gender. (Using references images to look at joints and determine bone age at the joint of a new image is interpreted as determining joint age)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the thermal scanning system as taught by Marine and WO-Marin to be modified with the subject matter of as taught by Jin. The modification would allow the system which already uses previously stored images to be modified using known teaching to provide additional information (i.e. bone grade, sex, joint bone age, nationality) based on comparison of images. This would provide an enhanced system that provides a more in-depth and informative assessment of health which can help provide early detection and treatment of issues.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marine (US 20210338148) and WO-Marin (WO 2022/238528) in further view of Wallace (US 2022/0316648).
Regarding Claim 8, Marine teaches a housing for the thermal imager connected to the support beam and the thermal imager can be moved up and down along the length of the support beam (Fig.5A,5B, and Par.54: The pivotability of the imaging connector 128 may allow the mobile device 102 and the imaging device 104 to be angled as desired, in Fig.5A-5B the thermal imager (116 in 104) is adjustable to be vertical, i.e. (1) from tilted to less tilted (vertical); (2) as it is tilted about the pivot point, the height changes along a small portion of the length of the beam. Fig.5A, vertical portion between 106 and 104 is a beam). However, Marine does not teach that a motor is utilized.
Wallace teaches that it is well known for a motor can be used to move a display device up and down the length of the support beam (Fig.3A, 3B, 3C, 3D, and Par.33, motors to cause the display housing 140 to move up or down or, for example, to rotate where rotational features are provided). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the thermal scanning system that is connected to a beam as taught by Marine and WO-Marin to be modified with the subject matter of Wallace such that a motor can be used to adjust not only the tilt but also the height of the device. This would provide for an enhanced device which can be used in a more hands-off manner such that adjustments can be made more easily, even providing for memory presets with repeatable adjustments.
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 WESLEY LEO KIM whose telephone number is (571)272-7867. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5:30 M-F.
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.
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.
/WESLEY L KIM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2648
Prosecution Insights