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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 26 June 2026 has been entered.
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.
Claim 16 is 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.
Claim 16 recites that “the light emitters are further configured to emit the plurality of photons into the aperture continuously during a period of time”. Claim 1 now defines that “the light emitters are configured to emit a plurality of photos into the aperture according to a sequence” where a first subset are emitted “at a first time” and a second subset are emitted “at a second time after the first time”. It is entirely unclear how this “continuous” emission of photons relates to the sequential emission of photons, particularly as claim 16 explicitly refers to the photons, where claim 1 calls for their emission during two separate, nonoverlapping periods but claim 16 somehow prefers to deliver the photons during the same period and continuously through that period, such that even if the “period of time” of claim 16 encompassed both “at a first time” and “at a second time” of claim 1 the emission of the photons could not be continuous over that entre period of time when the first and second time do not overlap. Still further, claim 16 indicates that “the measurement data” is collected during this other period of delivering photos and sensing data even though claim 1 calls for collecting “the measurement data” in response to the photons delivered at the first and second times. It is entirely unclear what the intent is for the delivery of photons and overall operation of the system when delivery of both sets photons is simultaneously both continuous over time but also separately during nonoverlapping periods of time. Where there is a great deal of confusion and uncertainty as to the proper interpretation of the limitations of a claim, it would not be proper to reject such a claim on the basis of prior art. As stated in In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859, 134 USPQ 292 (CCPA 1962), a rejection should not be based on considerable speculation about the meaning of terms employed in a claim or assumptions that must be made as to the scope of the claims. See MPEP 2173.06. Claim 16 cannot be further treated on the merits.
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, 3, 4, 6-11, 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hetz (US 2020/0384287).
Regarding claim 1, Hetz discloses a system comprising:
an annular support structure defining an aperture (figure 1, element 10; figure 17);
a plurality of light emitters secured to the annular support structure (paragraph [0205]);
a plurality of light sensors secured to the annular support structure (paragraph [0004], [0245]); and
a computer system communicatively coupled to the light emitters and the light sensors (element 200),
wherein the light emitters are configured to emit a plurality of photons into the aperture according to a sequence (paragraphs [0193], [0206], [0224]), wherein according to the sequence:
a first subset of the photons having a first wavelength of light is emitted into the aperture at a first time and a second subset of the photons having a second wavelength of light different from the first wavelength of light is emitted into the aperture at a second time after the first time (paragraph [0183], [0189], [0206] “For example, the CLG may pulse one wavelength and then pulse another wavelength…”),
wherein the light sensors are configured to obtain measurement data regarding the photons reflecting and/or scattering from a subject (paragraphs [0004], [0281]) disposed within the aperture (figure 17), and
wherein the computer system is configured to determine one or more properties of the subject based on the measurement data (paragraph [0289]), wherein the determining comprises:
determining, based on the measurement data corresponding to the first subset of the photons, one or more first properties regarding a first type of tissue at a first depth within the subject and determining, based on the measurement data corresponding to the second subset of the photons, one or more second properties regarding a second type of tissue at a second depth within the subject (paragraphs [0281], [0289], [0292], [0294], [0295], [0298], [0299], [0301] – the sensed data is data acquired while the photons are delivered to the body, paragraph [0281]),
wherein the first type of tissue is different from the second type of tissue and the first depth is different from the second depth (paragraphs [0194], [0231], [0326]).
Regarding claim 3, Hetz further discloses that the light emitters and the light sensors alternate along a circumference of the annular support structure (paragraph [0281]; figure 6).
Regarding claim 4, Hetz further discloses that the annular support structure has a tubular shape (figure 1; paragraph [0198]), and wherein the light emitters and light sensors are distributed along a length of the annular support structure (paragraph [0281], any elongated area is “a length”).
Regarding claim 6, Hetz further discloses that the annular support structure is configured to encircle the subject (figure 17).
Regarding claim 7, Hetz further discloses that the subject is a portion of a human body (figure 17).
Regarding claim 8, Hetz further discloses that the portion of the human body comprises an arm of the human body (paragraph [0384]).
Regarding claim 9, Hetz further discloses that the computer system is configured to determine a morphology of skin along the portion of the human body based on the measurement data (paragraph [0253], [0289], [0290], [0299])
Regarding claim 10, Hetz further discloses that the computer system is configured to determine a condition of a wound of the portion of the human body based on the measurement data (paragraph [0295]).
Regarding claim 11, Hetz further discloses that the computer system is configured to determine a health condition of the subject based on the measurement data (paragraphs [0253], [0289]).
Regarding claim 13, Hetz further discloses that the subject is an animal (paragraph [0187]).
Regarding claim 14, Hetz further discloses that the subject is an adult human (paragraph [0187], “any biological systems, including human patients” encompasses adult humans).
Regarding claim 15, Hetz further discloses that subject is a human child (paragraph [0187], “any biological systems, including human patients” encompasses human children.
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) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hetz in view of Wentz (US 2019/0239753).
Regarding claim 2, Hetz further discloses that the system can be configured “to enable Light Detection and Ranging (“LIDAR”) functionality for the device (paragraph [0292]), but does not specifically discloses that the measurement data comprises a data record indicating a length of time between an emission of at least some of the photons by one or more of the light emitters and an arrival of those photons at one or more of the light sensors. Wentz teaches a system configured for photon detection for sampling a physical sample (abstract) wherein measurement data includes a data record indicating a length of time between an emission of at least some photons by one or more of light emitters and an arrival of those photons at one or more light sensors (paragraph [0046]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have made the system of Hetz and included time of flight of photons in the measurement data, as taught by Wentz, in order to improve position detection with the system.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hetz in view of Barnes (US 2017/0150903).
Hetz does not specifically call for the health condition to be at least one of a rash, carcinoma, lymphedema, lymphadenitis, or leucoplakia. Barnes teaches a system configured to determine a health condition of a subject from measurement data obtained by light sensors regarding photons reflecting and/or scattering from the subject after being emitted by light emitters (paragraph [0038], [0063]-[0064], [0070], [0081]), where the health condition may be a carcinoma (paragraph [0079]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have made the system of Hetz and configured the system for determination of a carcinoma from the obtained data, as taught by Barnes, in order to allow early and accurate identification of adverse health conditions.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 26 June 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the art rejections, Applicant argues only that Hetz only discloses simultaneous delivery of the different wavelengths of light, not delivery of one wavelength’s photons at one time and another wavelength’s photons at another time. This is entirely unpersuasive, as Hetz clearly teaches non-simultaneous delivery – as cited above, paragraph [0206] clearly states “For example, the CLG may pulse one wavelength and then pulse another wavelength….”. As Hetz clearly teaches this newly added limitation of sequential delivery, the remarks are moot.
The Examiner notes that Applicant’s remarks do not address any teachings of Wentz or Barnes.
Conclusion
No art has been applied against claim 16; as claim 16 is rejected under 112 above it is not presently allowable and the question of prior art will be revisited when the scope of the claim is improved.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAREN E TOTH whose telephone number is (571)272-6824. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9a-6p.
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, Jennifer Robertson can be reached at 571-272-5001. 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.
/KAREN E TOTH/Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights