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 with traverse of Species A (Figure 2) in the reply filed on 2/11/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the inventions are not independent and distinct as claimed and there is not a serious search burden. This is not found persuasive because the restriction was between species and not inventions. Applicant has highlighted a relationship between species, which according to MPEP 808.01(a) would mean they are not independent inventions. A requirement for restriction is permissible if there is a patentable difference between the species as claimed and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden on the examiner if restriction is not required therefore supporting the species restriction requirement. Applicant has also noted that Figure 2 may be performed as a pre-condition after which the remaining operation of Figure 2 and the operating method of Figure 3 may be performed based on Paragraph [0062] of the published disclosure. Therefore, the steps in Figure 2 are not interchangeable with the steps of Figure 3 and have different operations and effects (e.g. species B provides generating therapeutic light). Therefore the species are not clearly obvious over each other and are directed to different species.
Since the different species utilize different steps to detect lesion areas (e.g. Species A Extracts image feature point from local image, generates a lesion map by combining local images based on image feature point, and generates a cumulative light irradiation map; while Species B obtains lesion image of lesion area of user based on optical signal transmitted through single optical path, detects lesion area from obtained lesion image, then transmits first trigger signal to therapeutic light generator in response to termination of detecting lesion area and generates patterned therapeutic light based on shape of the lesion area in response to reception of the first trigger signal by therapeutic light generator). Therefore the species have acquired a separate status in the art in view of their classification; have acquired a separate status in the art due to their recognized divergent subject matter; require a different field of search (for example, searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search queries); and are likely to raise different non-prior art issues under 35 U.S.C. 101 and/or 35 U.S.C 112, first paragraph.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 6-8 and 15-17 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 2/11/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-3, and 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) a mental process of using images to extract a feature, generate a lesion map and a cumulative light irradiation map. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the elements listed (e.g. lesion image obtainer, image feature point extractor, lesion map generator, and cumulative light irradiation map) are all parts of a computer program (e.g. Paragraph [0084] as published) or using a camera (part of a generic computing device) to obtain images and then process the images to determine feature points, and generate maps. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims do not recite additional elements besides those of a generic computing device. The above-identified additional elements are generically claimed computer components which enable the above-identified abstract idea(s) to be conducted by performing the basic functions of automating mental tasks. The courts have recognized such computer functions as well understood, routine, and conventional functions when claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. See, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc. , 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); and OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93. Accordingly, Claims 1-3 and 9-13 are not patent eligible and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to abstract ideas implemented on a generic computer in view of the Supreme Court Decision in Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al. and 2019 PEG.
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) 1-3, and 9-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shelton et al (US Publication 2022/0028078) in view of Saito et al (JP 2012-050601), provided in IDS dated 12/19/2024.
Referring to Claims 1 and 10, Shelton et al teaches a light-based diagnostic treatment apparatus and an operating method of a light-based diagnostic treatment apparatus, the comprising: obtaining local images over time through a camera of the light-based diagnostic treatment apparatus (e.g. Figures 4A-4F, images 410-460); extracting an image feature point from the local images (e.g. Figure 4A, landmarks 415A-415C and Paragraph [0084]); generating a lesion map comprising a lesion area of a user by combining the local images based on the extracted image feature point (e.g. Paragraph [0006] discloses generating a target map by integrating a plurality of images based on landmarks identified form the one or more images). However, Shelton et al does not explicitly disclose generating a cumulative light irradiation map indicating accumulation information of therapeutic light output to the lesion area based on the lesion map and position information of an optical stimulation unit of the light-based diagnostic treatment apparatus. Saito et al teaches that it is known to use generating a therapeutic effect image indicating accumulation information of therapeutic light output to the lesion area based on the lesion map and position information of an optical stimulation unit of the light-based diagnostic treatment apparatus as set forth in Figure 18 and Paragraphs [0116] and [0118] to provide a visual display of the progress of treatment so that the operator can improve the chances of fully eliminating the target (e.g. Paragraphs [0009] and [0011]). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the system/method as taught by Shelton et al, with a cumulative light irradiation map indicating accumulation information of therapeutic light output to the lesion area based on the lesion map and position information of an optical stimulation unit of the light-based diagnostic treatment apparatus as taught by Saito et al, since such a modification would provide the predictable results of visual display of the progress of treatment so that the operator can improve the chances of fully eliminating the target.
Referring to Claims 2 and 11, Shelton et al in view of Saito et al teaches the claimed invention, except wherein the generating of the cumulative light irradiation map comprises: estimating an amount of light irradiated to the lesion area by recording a moving path of a probe in the lesion area, wherein the light is therapeutic light output by the optical stimulation unit; generating the cumulative light irradiation map by displaying the estimated amount of light on the lesion map. Saito et al teaches that it is known to use wherein the generating of the cumulative light irradiation map comprises: estimating an amount of light irradiated to the lesion area by recording a moving path of a probe in the lesion area, wherein the light is therapeutic light output by the optical stimulation unit; generating the cumulative light irradiation map by displaying the estimated amount of light on the lesion map as set forth in Figure 18 and Paragraphs [0116], [0118] and [0120] to provide a visual display of the progress of treatment so that the operator can improve the chances of fully eliminating the target (e.g. Paragraphs [0009] and [0011]). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the system/method as taught by Shelton et al, with wherein the generating of the cumulative light irradiation map comprises: estimating an amount of light irradiated to the lesion area by recording a moving path of a probe in the lesion area, wherein the light is therapeutic light output by the optical stimulation unit; generating the cumulative light irradiation map by displaying the estimated amount of light on the lesion map as taught by Saito et al, since such a modification would provide the predictable results of visual display of the progress of treatment so that the operator can improve the chances of fully eliminating the target.
Referring to Claims 3 and 12, Shelton et al in view of Saito et al teaches the claimed invention, wherein the generating of the lesion map comprises: generating the lesion map by connecting the local images based on a corresponding image feature point extracted from the local images (e.g. Paragraph [0006] discloses generating a target map by integrating a plurality of images based on landmarks identified form the one or more images).
Referring to Claim 9, Shelton et al in view of Saito et al teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions that, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to perform the operating method of claim 1 (e.g. Paragraph [0140] discloses a computer readable medium physically modified to encode instructions of the specific operation).
Claim(s) 4, 5, 13, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shelton et al (US Publication 2022/0028078) in view of Saito et al (JP 2012-050601) as applied above, and further in view of Choi et al (WO 2023054836).
Referring to Claims 4 and 13, Shelton et al in view of Saito et al teaches the claimed invention, except further comprising: recognizing a shape of the lesion area based on the lesion map; determining an output pattern of therapeutic light based on the recognized lesion area; outputting patterned therapeutic light based on the determined output pattern, wherein the shape of the lesion area corresponds to an output pattern of the patterned therapeutic light.
Choi et al teaches that it is known to use recognizing a shape of the lesion area based on the lesion map; determining an output pattern of therapeutic light based on the recognized lesion area; outputting patterned therapeutic light based on the determined output pattern, wherein the shape of the lesion area corresponds to an output pattern of the patterned therapeutic light as set forth in Paragraphs [0018], [0053] and Figure 4 to provide maximizing the effect of phototherapy and reduces surgical procedure time (e.g. Paragraph [0018]). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the system/method as taught by Shelton et al, with recognizing a shape of the lesion area based on the lesion map; determining an output pattern of therapeutic light based on the recognized lesion area; outputting patterned therapeutic light based on the determined output pattern, wherein the shape of the lesion area corresponds to an output pattern of the patterned therapeutic light as taught by Choi et al, since such a modification would provide the predictable results of maximizing the effect of phototherapy and reduces surgical procedure time.
Referring to Claims 5 and 14, Shelton et al in view of Saito et al teaches the claimed invention, wherein the outputting of the patterned therapeutic light comprises: determining an intensity of the patterned therapeutic light to be output to each predetermined position in the lesion area based on an accumulated amount of the patterned therapeutic light at each predetermined position in the lesion area displayed on a cumulative light irradiation map; outputting therapeutic light having the determined intensity of therapeutic light through the optical stimulation unit. Choi et al teaches that it is known to use wherein the outputting of the patterned therapeutic light comprises: determining an intensity of the patterned therapeutic light to be output to each predetermined position in the lesion area based on an accumulated amount of the patterned therapeutic light at each predetermined position in the lesion area displayed on a cumulative light irradiation map; outputting therapeutic light having the determined intensity of therapeutic light through the optical stimulation unit as set forth in Paragraphs [0018], [0053] and Figure 4 to provide maximizing the effect of phototherapy and reduces surgical procedure time (e.g. Paragraph [0018]). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the system/method as taught by Shelton et al, with wherein the outputting of the patterned therapeutic light comprises: determining an intensity of the patterned therapeutic light to be output to each predetermined position in the lesion area based on an accumulated amount of the patterned therapeutic light at each predetermined position in the lesion area displayed on a cumulative light irradiation map; outputting therapeutic light having the determined intensity of therapeutic light through the optical stimulation unit as taught by Choi et al, since such a modification would provide the predictable results of maximizing the effect of phototherapy and reduces surgical procedure time.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Kim et al (KR 10-1901181) discloses an using a scanner to obtain a 3D image of a structure to control irradiation.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to William J Levicky whose telephone number is (571)270-3983. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8AM-5PM 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, David Hamaoui can be reached at (571)270-5625. 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.
/William J Levicky/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3796