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
Applicant's response to the last Office Action, filed on 3/6/2026 has been entered and made of record.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to claims 1, 10 have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-5, 10-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gurcan et al. (US 2022/0261987) in view of Abramoff et al. (US 2020/0037930).
Regarding claim 1, Gurcan teaches a system for diagnosing otitis media comprising: a method for observing contents behind the eardrum and generating data from the contents behind the
eardrum, a method for observing the surface of the eardrum and generating images of the
surface of the eardrum (see figure 2A, figure 2B, figure 6 ,para. 0062, Gurcan discusses generating images of eardrum surface and middle eardrum), and
a computation method jointly using the data from the contents behind the eardrum and data from the images of the surface of the eardrum to provide a diagnosis of otitis media (see figure 2A, figure 2B, figure 6,para. 0062, Gurcan discusses applying a CNN that contains encoder branches to extract features from images of the eardrum and middle eardrum, the CNN classifies abnormalities such as otitis media that is a middle-ear infection (back of eardrum infection)).
Abramoff teaches wherein the computational method uses multimodal Convolutional Neural Network (CNN) that jointly processes data from the images and data from behind the eardrum through parallel encoder branches (see figure 1, para. 0014, 0017, Abramoff discusses a CNN receiving eardrum images in parallel from an OCT and scope devices to perform image analysis).
Motivation to combine may be gleaned from the prior art considered. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Gurcan with Abramoff to derive at the invention of claim 1. The result would have been expected, routine, and predictable in order to perform eardrum image analysis.
The determination of obviousness is predicated upon the following: One skilled in the art would have been motivated to modify Gurcan in this manner in order to improve eardrum image analysis by receiving multiple image data and applying a convolutional neural network to properly identify the condition of the eardrum regions. Furthermore, the prior art collectively includes each element claimed (though not all in the same reference), and one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements in this manner explained using known engineering design, interface and/or programming techniques, without changing a fundamental operating principle of Gurcan, while the teaching of Abramoff continues to perform the same function as originally taught prior to being combined, in order to produce the repeatable and predictable result of receiving different image data of an eardrum and applying a CNN to properly extract features and identify image regions. The Gurcan and Abramoff systems perform eardrum image analysis, therefore a person having ordinary skill in the art would have reasonable expectation of success in the combination yielding predictable results. It is for at least the aforementioned reasons that the examiner has reached a conclusion of obviousness with respect to the claim in question.
Regarding claim 2, Abramoff teaches wherein the method for observing the contents behind the eardrum uses electromagnetic radiation, low-coherence interferometry, or mechanical waves (see para. 0014, Abramoff discusses spectral domain optical coherence tomography (OCT) system to obtain cross-sectional scan images of the eardrum).
The same motivation of claim 1 is applied to claim 2. Motivation to combine may be gleaned from the prior art considered. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Gurcan with Abramoff to derive at the invention of claim 2. The result would have been expected, routine, and predictable in order to perform eardrum image analysis.
Regarding claim 3, Abramoff teaches wherein the method for observing the eardrum surface uses electromagnetic radiation and an electromagnetic detector (see para. 0014, Abramoff discusses spectral domain optical coherence tomography (OCT) system obtain cross-sectional scan images of the eardrum).
The same motivation of claim 1 is applied to claim 3. Motivation to combine may be gleaned from the prior art considered. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Gurcan with Abramoff to derive at the invention of claim 3. The result would have been expected, routine, and predictable in order to perform eardrum image analysis.
Regarding claim 4, Gurcan teaches wherein the computation method for diagnosing otitis media is based on machine learning including deep learning, neural networks, support vector machines, logistic regression, or random forests (see figure 2A, figure 2B, figure 6,para. 0062, Gurcan discusses applying a CNN that contains encoder branches to extract features from images of the eardrum and middle eardrum, the CNN classifies abnormalities such as otitis media that is a middle-ear infection (back of eardrum infection)).
The same motivation of claim 1 is applied to claim 4. Motivation to combine may be gleaned from the prior art considered. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Gurcan with Abramoff to derive at the invention of claim 4. The result would have been expected, routine, and predictable in order to perform eardrum image analysis.
Regarding claim 5, Gurcan teaches wherein the computational method for diagnosing otitis media segments the eardrum from the rest of the contents (see figure 2A, figure 2B, figure 6,para. 0062, Gurcan discusses applying a CNN that contains encoder branches to extract features from images of the eardrum and middle eardrum, the CNN classifies abnormalities such as otitis media that is a middle-ear infection (back of eardrum infection)).
The same motivation of claim 1 is applied to claim 5. Motivation to combine may be gleaned from the prior art considered. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Gurcan with Abramoff to derive at the invention of claim 5. The result would have been expected, routine, and predictable in order to perform eardrum image analysis.
Claim 10 is rejected as applied to claim 1 as pertaining to a corresponding method.
Claim 11 is rejected as applied to claim 2 as pertaining to a corresponding method.
Claim 12 is rejected as applied to claim 3 as pertaining to a corresponding method.
Claim 13 is rejected as applied to claim 4 as pertaining to a corresponding method.
Claim 14 is rejected as applied to claim 5 as pertaining to a corresponding method.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-9, 15-18 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: No prior art was found to claim “wherein the method for observing contents behind the eardrum generates a surface image of the eardrum that is co-registered with subsurface depth-scan data in spatial coordinates, wherein the surface image and the subsurface depth-scan data are acquired simultaneously by an OCT system and scope device.”
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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNY A CESE whose telephone number is (571) 270-1896. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Friday, 9am – 4pm.
If attempts to reach the primary examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Gregory Morse can be reached on (571) 272-3838. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Kenny A Cese/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2663
Prosecution Insights