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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the text on the axes and legends is too small and/or faded, and thus not legible. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: the recitation of “such that each resonator of the respective plurality has a different unloaded resonant frequency than other resonators of the respective plurality” in claim 1, lines 14-15; and the recitation “having mutually differing physical configurations that result in each of the multiple resonators having an unloaded resonance frequency range that is substantially non-overlapping with an unloaded resonance frequency range of each other resonator of the multiple resonators” in lines 3-6.
Claim Objections
Claim 21 is objected to because of the following informalities:
in claim 21, line 7: “comprises” should be “comprises:”; and
in claim 21, line 17: “comprises” should be “comprises:”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 5, 11-16, 18, and 21-24 are 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 5 recites the term “some” in line 1, which is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “some” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is not clear whether “at least some” refers to “at least one” or “at least two”, i.e., does some encompass one or a plurality. Therefore, the bounds of the claim are not clear. For the purposes of examination, the claim term is being interpreted as “at least one”.
Claim 11 recites “generate a two-dimensional graphical representation of classified tissue condition for each resonator in the resonator array and the current position of that resonator” which is grammatically awkward and unclear. It is not clear how many “classified tissue condition[s]” there are/is supposed to be. Is the condition for each resonator or across the resonator array? Is this recitation related to the recitation “a tissue condition” in claim 8, line 9; the lack of a definite article adds to the confusion. Commensurate correction to the recitation in claim 12, line 4 is also required.
Claim 11 recites “the current position” in line 3, but it is not clear if this recitation is the same as, related to, or different from the recitation “a current position” in claim 8, line 9. The definite article “the” and the similar phraseology suggest that they are the same, but the context of the claim (i.e., for each resonator) suggests that they are different. If the recitations are different, the relationship between these recitations should be made clear and they should be clearly distinguished from each other (e.g., when multiple elements have similar or the same labels, distinct identifiers such as “first” and “second” should be used to clearly differentiate the elements). For the purposes of examination, the recitations are being interpreted as different.
Claim 12 is rejected by virtue of its dependence from claim 11.
Claim 13 recites “the current loaded resonant frequency of a selected one of the resonators” in lines 4-5, but it is not clear if these recitations are the same as, related to, or different from the recitations: “a selected resonator” in claim 8, line 6; and “a current loaded resonant frequency” in claim 8, line 8. The definite article “the” in the recitation “the current loaded resonant frequency” suggests that they are the same, but the indefinite article “a” in the recitation “a selected one of the resonators” suggest that they are different. Appropriate clarification is required.
Claims 14-16 are rejected by virtue of their dependence from claim 13.
Claim 18 recites the term “attempt” in line 3, which is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “attempt” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is not clear how much adjustment is needed in an attempt to maintain a constant contact pressure. Therefore, the bounds of the claim are not clear. For the purposes of examination, this claim recitation is not being given patentable weight.
Claim 18 recites “a patient’s skin” in lines 3-4, but it is not clear if this recitation is the same as, related to, or different from the recitation “a patient’s skin” in claim 17, line 2. The indefinite article “a” suggests that they are different, but the similar phraseology and context of the claim suggest that they are the same. If the recitations are the same, the present recitation should be “the patient’s skin”. If the recitations are different, the relationship between these recitations should be made clear and they should be clearly distinguished from each other (e.g., when multiple elements have similar or the same labels, distinct identifiers such as “first” and “second” should be used to clearly differentiate the elements). For the purposes of examination, the recitations are being interpreted as the same.
Claim 21 recites “the current loaded resonant frequency of a selected one of the resonators” in lines 18-19, but it is not clear if these recitations are the same as, related to, or different from the recitations: “the given resonator” in line 9; and “a current loaded resonant frequency” in lines 9-10. The definite article “the” in the recitation “the current loaded resonant frequency” suggests that they are the same, but the indefinite article “a” in the recitation “a selected one of the resonators” suggest that they are different. Appropriate clarification is required.
Claims 22-24 are rejected by virtue of their dependence from claim 21.
Claim 24 recites “generating a two-dimensional graphical representation of classified tissue condition for each respective resonator in the two-dimensional array of resonators and the current position of the respective resonator” which is grammatically awkward and unclear. It is not clear how many “classified tissue condition[s]” there are/is supposed to be. Is the condition for each resonator or across the resonator array? Is this recitation related to the recitation “a tissue condition” in claim 21, line 12; the lack of a definite article adds to the confusion.
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 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.
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.
The succeeding art rejections to the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103 below are made with the claims as best understood and interpreted in light of the preceding rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112 above.
Claims 1, 4-7, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Puentes et al. (“Frequency Multiplexed 2-Dimensional Sensor Array Based on Split-Ring Resonators for Organic Tissue Analysis”, IEEE Trans Microwave Theory Tech, vol. 60, no. 6, pp.1720-1727, 2012 – cited by Applicant), hereinafter Puentes, and in view of Guardiola García et al., (WIPO Publication 2024/023319), hereinafter Guardiola García.
Regarding Claim 1, Puentes teaches a frequency multiplexed 2-dimensional sensor array using microstrip-line-excited split-ring resonators (SRRs) (see abstract and Figs. 1 and 12). Puentes teaches a dual-mode medical device (see abstract and Figs. 1 and 12; see also pg. 1726, § VII. Measurements with the 2-D Sensor Array, ¶4, the sensor is contemplated operating in two modes, the first one with a low power to make the sensing of the dielectric properties of the tissue and once the abnormality was detected the sensor could switch to a second operation mode where the power could be increased and the malignant tissue heated, this technique is well known as thermal ablation) comprising:
a resonator array comprising a dielectric substrate having upper and lower surfaces (pg. 1724, § VI. 2D Sensor Array Design, §§ A. Design of the 2-D Sensor Array, the 2-D sensor array, formed on the upper surface of the dielectric substrate, such as RT/duroid 6010 with dielectric constant ε = 10.2; Figs. 12-13),
a ground plane disposed on the lower surface (pg. 1724, § VI. 2D Sensor Array Design, §§ A. Design of the 2-D Sensor Array, the ground, located adjacent to the lower surface of the dielectric substrate; Figs. 12-13),
a microstrip transmission line disposed on and spaced across the upper surface (pg. 1724, § VI. 2D Sensor Array Design, §§ A. Design of the 2-D Sensor Array, and pg. 1726, § VIII. Conclusion, the microstrip line coupled to the SRRs; Figs. 1 and 12-13), and
for the rows of the microstrip transmission line, a respective plurality of resonators disposed along the upper surface and adjacent that microstrip transmission line in a configuration supporting energy coupling between each resonator of the respective plurality of resonators and the adjacent microstrip transmission line row (pg. 1724, § VI. 2D Sensor Array Design, §§ A. Design of the 2-D Sensor Array, and pg. 1726, § VIII. Conclusion, the microstrip line coupled to the SRRs, pg. 1721, § II. Split Ring Resonator, the SRRs are magnetically coupled to the transmission line; Figs. 1 and 12-13);
wherein, within each respective plurality of resonators, each resonator of the respective plurality has a different configuration than other resonators of the respective plurality, such that each resonator of the respective plurality has a different unloaded resonant frequency than other resonators of the respective plurality (abstract, pg. 1724, § VI. 2D Sensor Array Design, §§ A. Design of the 2-D Sensor Array, the SRRs have different resonant frequencies, by varying the width, and are decoupled from one another, into the 12 pixels as shown in Fig. 1; Figs. 1 and 12-13).
Puentes does not teach that a plurality of microstrip transmission lines are utilized with the SSR rows; or that the coupling is via RF coupling.
Guardiola García teaches an endoscope apparatus including a second substrate (see abstract and Fig. 1), in which there may be multiple second substrates 42, each with multiple antennas 44/45 for transmission and reception (see ¶[0035]; Fig. 4), in which the multiple second substrates 62 comprising multiple antennas may be connected via separate transmission lines, such as microstrips, to the multiplexors 64/65 for outside connectors 66 a/b (see ¶[0041]-[0042]; Fig. 6A), or the multiple second substrates 62 comprising multiple antennas may be connected via separate transmission lines such as microstrips, to their respective connector 68 for outside communication with an external multiplexor (not shown) (see ¶[0041]-[0042]; Fig. 6B), in which the coupling of the antennas to the microstrips and implementation of the control signals may be via RF signals (see ¶[0026], ¶[0041]-[0042], and ¶[0052]-[0057]), in which the antennas transmit and receive microwave signals for the dielectric imaging of the colon (see ¶[0033] and ¶[0037]-[0038]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the distinct (i.e., plurality) of microstrips for their respective plurality of antennas modality of Guardiola García with the 2-D SRR array in Puentes (i.e., the rows have their own microstrip transmission line) because (1) it is the application of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results; and/or (2) Puentes teaches the multiplexed 2-D sensor array (see for example abstract and pg. 1724, § VI. 2D Sensor Array Design, §§ A. Design of the 2-D Sensor Array), but not the specific multiplexed design and Guardiola García teaches two such designs; and/or (3) the configuration of on sensor multiplexors (see Guardiola García Fig. 6A) avoids the need for connectors for each element (see Guardiola García ¶[0035]); and/or (4) the configuration of external multiplexors (see Guardiola García Fig. 6B) allows the sensing device (i.e., the accessory 81) to be cheaper and disposable (see Guardiola García ¶[0048]-[0049]; Figs. 16B and 8).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the RF coupling of Guardiola García with coupling in the modified Puentes because (1) it is the application of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results; and/or (2) the modified Puentes requires coupling of the resonators to the microstrip transmission lines and Guardiola García teaches one such coupling; and/or (3) RF coupling is a known coupling in the art of resonators to microstrip transmission lines.
Regarding Claim 4, Puentes in view of Guardiola García teaches the device of claim 1 as stated above. Puentes further teaches each of the resonators in the resonator array is a split-ring resonator (SRR) (abstract and pg. 1724, § VI. 2D Sensor Array Design, §§ A. Design of the 2-D Sensor Array, the 2-D sensor array of SRRs; Figs. 1 and 12-13).
Regarding Claim 5, Puentes in view of Guardiola García teaches the device of claim 4 as stated above. Puentes further teaches at least some of the SRRs in the split-ring resonator array comprise a rectangular loop structure with a gap having capacitive loading ears (see pg. 1722-1723, § IV. Capacitive Extraction Model, the single ring (i.e., loop) with capacitive sensing region comprising the gap; Fig. 7, see also Figs. 1 and 13).
Regarding Claim 6, Puentes in view of Guardiola García teaches the device of claim 1 as stated above. Puentes further teaches a top dielectric layer overlying the plurality of microstrip transmission lines and the plurality of resonators of each microstrip transmission line of the plurality of microstrip transmission lines (pg. 1724, § VI. 2D Sensor Array Design, §§ A. Design of the 2-D Sensor Array, the 2top isolation layer, pg. 1725-1726, § VII. Measurements with the 2-D Sensor Array, ¶2, the isolation layer is a dielectric isolation sheet; Fig. 12).
Regarding Claim 7, Puentes in view of Guardiola García teaches the device of claim 1 as stated above. The modified Puentes further teaches to supply, to each of the plurality of microstrip transmission lines, a respective radio frequency (RF) signal (see Guardiola García ¶[0026], ¶[0041]-[0042], and ¶[0052]-[0054], the transmission lines (i.e., the microstrips) that transmit the RF signals and the control signals to and from the multiplexors).
Guardiola García further teaches the antenna array control system which may generate a sequence of control signals to control the multiplexers that are responsible for selecting transmitting and receiving signals to or from the antennas, and may select the pair of transmitting and receiving antennas, active at any given moment using control signals (i.e., selective supplying) (see Guardiola García ¶[0041]-[0042] and ¶[0052]-[0054]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the control circuitry (i.e., the control system) of Guardiola García for selective RF signal supplying in the modified Puentes because (1) it is the application of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results; and/or (2) the modified Puentes requires control of the RF signal supplying and Guardiola García teaches one such modality; and/or (3) the selective supplying provides more flexibility in which pixels to utilize depending on the present situation.
Regarding Claim 20, Puentes in view of Guardiola García teaches the device of claim 1 as stated above. Puentes further the unloaded resonant frequencies of the resonators of the resonator array lie in a range between 1 GHz and 25 GHz (pg. 1725-1726, § VII. Measurements with the 2-D Sensor Array, the application of frequencies to the 2-D sensor array to observe the shift in resonant frequency peak, the graphs in Figs. 18-20 indicate that the resonant frequencies range from 1.9 to 4.5 GHz; Figs. 18-20).
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Puentes in view of Guardiola García as applied to claim 1 above, and in view of Pance et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2020/0194881), hereinafter Pance.
Regarding Claim 2, Puentes in view of Guardiola García teaches the device of claim 1 as stated above. Puentes teaches that each of the resonators is decoupled from one another (abstract, pg. 1724, § VI. 2D Sensor Array Design, §§ A. Design of the 2-D Sensor Array, the SRRs have different resonant frequencies, by varying the width, and are decoupled from one another, into the 12 pixels as shown in Fig. 1; Figs. 1 and 12-13).
The modified Puentes does not specifically teach interposed between adjacent resonators of each respective plurality of resonators, a respective via fence comprising a spaced plurality of conductive vias formed in the dielectric substrate and in electrical contact with the ground plane.
Pance teaches a dielectric resonator antenna (DRA) including a ground structure with a dielectric material formed on top (see abstract and Fig. 1A), in which there may be an array, such as the 2x2 array 1099, of DRA’s 1100, in which each DRA 1100 has an electrically conductive fence 1150 that surrounds each respective DRA 1100 (see ¶[0106]; Fig. 11A), in which the electrically conductive fence is designed to suppress signal resonance within the inner boundaries of the fence 1050 and slopes up from the ground 1002, and may be implemented as any suitable form, such as vias (see ¶[0102]; Fig. 10A), in which the fence 1050 is electrically connected with and forms part of the ground structure 1002 (see ¶[0101]; Fig. 10A), in which a signal feed 1006 lies within the fence 1050 (see ¶[0101]; Fig. 10A), and may be implemented as a microstrip 1306 (see ¶[0109]; Fig. 13A).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to surround each resonator in the modified Puentes with the ground connected electrically conductive fence, such as with vias, of Pance because (1) it is the application of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results and/or (2) surrounding each resonator would help to suppress signal resonance within the inner boundaries of the fence (see Pance ¶[0102]). Here, the modified Puentes now teaches the electrically conductive fence surrounding each resonator/pixel in the 2-D sensor array, such as depicted via dividing lines in Puentes Fig. 1. It is also noted that the electrically conductive fence would not isolate each resonator/pixel from their respective microstrip, as then the resonators would not be able to communicate and/or receive signals from the microstrip transmission line, and the device would be inoperable.
Regarding Claim 3, Puentes in view of Guardiola García and Pance teaches the device of claim 2 as stated above. The modified Puentes further teaches at least one respective additional via fence interposed between each given microstrip transmission line of the plurality of microstrip transmission lines and any resonator in the resonator array that is proximate to but not intended to couple to that given microstrip transmission line (see Pance ¶[0106], each DRA 1100 (i.e., resonator) has an electrically conductive fence 1150 that surrounds each respective DRA 1100 (i.e., resonator); Fig. 11A).
Claims 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Puentes in view of Guardiola García as applied to claim 7 above, and in view of Gelfand (US Patent Application Publication 2026/0026695), hereinafter Gelfand.
Regarding Claim 8, Puentes in view of Guardiola García teaches the device of claim 7 as stated above. The modified Puentes further teaches the controller circuit (see Guardiola García ¶[0041]-[0042] and ¶[0052]-[0054], the antenna array control system which may generate a sequence of control signals to control the multiplexers that are responsible for selecting transmitting and receiving signals to or from the antennas, and may select the pair of transmitting and receiving antennas, active at any given moment using control signals (i.e., selective supplying)) is configured to, in a diagnostic mode where the resonator array is placed in contact with a patient's skin (see Puentes pg. 1720-1721, § I. Introduction and pg. 1725-1726, § VII. Measurements with the 2-D Sensor Array, the experimental 2-D sensor array is contemplated as being used with human organs in future developments, including for use with human skin; Figs. 12 and 20),
perform a first resonator-selective procedure (see generally Puentes pg. 1725-1726, § VII. Measurements with the 2-D Sensor Array; Figs. 18-20), the first resonator-selective procedure comprising:
sweeping a frequency of the respective RF signal supplied to a given one of the plurality of microstrip transmission lines, over a range of frequencies within which a loaded resonant frequency is expected to be found for a selected resonator that couples to the given one of the plurality of microstrip transmission lines (see Puentes pg. 1725-1726, § VII. Measurements with the 2-D Sensor Array, the application of frequencies to the 2-D sensor array to observe the shift in resonant frequency peak, the graphs in Figs. 18-20 indicate that at least frequencies ranging from 1.5 to 5 GHz were applied and observed; Figs. 18-20);
detecting a current loaded resonant frequency for the selected resonator (see Puentes pg. 1725-1726, § VII. Measurements with the 2-D Sensor Array and Figs. 18-20, the frequency response measured to see the resonant frequency shift); and
identify a tissue condition of the patient's skin at a current position of the selected resonator based at least in part on the current loaded resonant frequency (see Puentes pg. 1725-1726, § VII. Measurements with the 2-D Sensor Array and Figs. 18-20, the pixel showing the resonant frequency shift are identified).
The modified Puentes teaches that the shift in resonant frequency may be used to identify changes in tissue condition, such as cancer (see generally Puentes pg. 1720-1721, § I. Introduction), but does not specifically teach classifying the response data to determine the condition.
Gelfand teaches a system with an implanted antenna that, in response to the antenna being actuated, generates a response signal indicating a resonant frequency response and/or an attenuation response, in which a shift in the resonant frequency response and/or the attenuation response indicative of a change in the physiological condition at the region inside the living body (see abstract, ¶[0053]-[0055], ¶[0058]-[0059], and ¶[0074]), in which the signals used to measure are in the microwave range, such as 433 MHz, 868 MHz, and 2.4 GHz (see ¶[0094]), in which the antenna is a RFID device (see ¶[0074]), in which the changes may be indicative of changes in blood flow, such as an endo leak (see ¶[0100]), in which the algorithm may involve a trained (i.e., data trend) artificial intelligence model (see ¶[0090] and ¶[0109]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the trained artificial intelligence model involving the resonant frequency response and/or the attenuation response of Gelfand with the measured response data (i.e., the artificial intelligence model would be trained on this data in the modified Puentes) from the 2-D sensor array in the modified Puentes because (1) it is the application of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results; and/or (2) the modified Puentes contemplates classifying tissue conditions based on the response data and Gelfand teaches one such modality of classifying the data; and/or (3) an artificial intelligence model, trained with the response data in the modified Puentes (necessary or the model would not work) may provide insights/connections not normally observable through standard algorithms/statistics.
Regarding Claim 9, Puentes in view of Guardiola García and Gelfand teaches the device of claim 8 as stated above. The modified Puentes further teaches the first resonator-selective procedure further comprises: measuring an attenuation of the respective RF signal at the current loaded resonant frequency; and classifying the tissue condition further based on the attenuation (see Puentes pg. 1725-1726, § VII. Measurements with the 2-D Sensor Array, the application of frequencies to the 2-D sensor array to observe the shift in resonant frequency peak, the graphs in Figs. 18-20 indicate that at least frequencies ranging from 1.5 to 5 GHz were applied and observed, Figs. 18-20; see Gelfand abstract, ¶[0053]-[0055], ¶[0058]-[0059], and ¶[0074], the identified/classified shift in the resonant frequency response and/or the attenuation response indicative of a change in the physiological condition at the region inside the living body, ¶[0090] and ¶[0109], the algorithm may involve a trained (i.e., data trend) artificial intelligence model).
Regarding Claim 10, Puentes in view of Guardiola García and Gelfand teaches the device of claim 8 as stated above. The modified Puentes further teaches the controller circuit is further configured to, in the diagnostic mode, repeat the first resonator-selective procedure for each other combination of a given one of the plurality of microstrip transmission lines and resonator that couples to that given one of the plurality of microstrip transmission lines (see Puentes pg. 1725-1726, § VII. Measurements with the 2-D Sensor Array, the application of frequencies to the 2-D sensor array to observe the shift in resonant frequency peak, the graphs in Figs. 18-20 indicate that at least frequencies ranging from 1.5 to 5 GHz were applied and observed, the graphs indicate that all of the pixel (i.e., SRRs) were tested for response, Figs. 18-20; see Gelfand abstract, ¶[0053]-[0055], ¶[0058]-[0059], and ¶[0074], the identified/classified shift in the resonant frequency response and/or the attenuation response indicative of a change in the physiological condition at the region inside the living body, ¶[0090] and ¶[0109], the algorithm may involve a trained (i.e., data trend) artificial intelligence model).
Claims 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Puentes in view of Guardiola García as applied to claim 1 above, and in view of Chaudhry (US Patent Application Publication 2019/0053741), hereinafter Chaudhry.
Regarding Claim 17, Puentes in view of Guardiola García teaches the device of claim 1 as stated above. The modified Puentes is silent regarding an applicator to hold the resonator array during positioning of the medical device against a patient's skin.
Chaudhry teaches a non-invasive testing apparatus for determining a concentration of a target substance by measuring the amplitude and phase of a response signal from a given RF signal (see abstract and Fig. 1), in which an embodiment provides a body and strap to secure the antenna face to the patient’s skin, in which an inflatable air bladder 4016 is utilized to cause the front surface 4014 (i.e., the antenna surface) to press against the patient’s skin with a predetermined force that is the same for all tests (see ¶[0045]-[0050] and ¶[0177]-[0178]; Figs. 16-17), in which the pressure/force 4030 is even across the front surface 4014 (see ¶[0049] and ¶[0178]; Fig. 17).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the applicator (i.e., the body, strap, and air bladder) of Chaudhry with the 12 pixel 2-D sensor array of the modified Puentes because (1) it is the application of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results; and/or (2) the modified Puentes requires an applicator for usage with skin and Chaudhry teaches one such applicator; and/or (3) by ensuring that the front surface of the antenna is pressed against the patient's skin with the same predetermined force each time a test is carried out, the reproducibility of the test can be improved (see Chaudry ¶[0046]); and/or (4) the air bladder ensures that an even pressure/force is applied across the front surface (i.e., antenna) (see Chaudhry ¶[0049] and ¶[0178]; Fig. 17).
Regarding Claim 18, Puentes in view of Guardiola García and Chaudhry teaches the device of claim 17 as stated above. The modified Puentes further teaches the applicator movably holds the resonator array, and adjusts a position of the resonator array relative to at least one other part of the applicator to attempt to maintain a constant contact pressure of the resonator array against a patient's skin (see Chaudhry ¶[0046], the same predetermined force is applied for all tests, ¶[0049] and ¶[0178], the pressure/force 4030 is even across the front surface 4014; Fig. 17). Here, the position of the skin contacting surface (i.e., the 12 pixel 2-D sensor array in the modified Puentes) is adjusted relative to the body and band structures.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Puentes in view of Guardiola García as applied to claim 1 above, and in view of Sharma et al. (“Design and Modeling of the Ring Resonator-Based Microwave Sensor for Skin Cancer Detection”, Flexible Electronics for Electric Vehicles, Lecture Notes, Springer Nature Singapore, October 2022 – cited by Applicant), hereinafter Sharma.
Regarding Claim 19, Puentes in view of Guardiola García teaches the device of claim 1 as stated above. Puentes generally teaches the unloaded resonant frequencies of the resonators of the resonator array lie in a range between 1.9 GHz and 4.5 GHz (pg. 1725-1726, § VII. Measurements with the 2-D Sensor Array, the application of frequencies to the 2-D sensor array to observe the shift in resonant frequency peak, the graphs in Figs. 18-20 indicate that the resonant frequencies range from 1.9 to 4.5 GHz; Figs. 18-20).
The modified Puentes does not specifically teach that the unloaded resonant frequencies lie in a range between5 GHz and 15 GHz.
Sharma teaches of a novel microwave sensor for detection of skin cancer (see abstract) in which various split ring resonators are proposed (see § 2 Proposed Ring Sensor Development), in which the resonant frequencies in the range of 2 GHz to 18 GHz display more reflection in the skin phantom model in the presence of a cancer cell and thus allows the detection of tumor very visible in the phantom (see abstract and § 3 Result and Discussion, see specifically § 3.2 Development of Skin Model and Result of the Sensor with Skin, ¶2).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the multiple resonant frequencies within the range of 2 GHz to 18 GHz of Sharma with the 12 pixel 2-D sensor array (i.e., the various resonant frequencies are achieved by the different pixels) of the modified Puentes because (1) it is the application of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results; and/or (2) the modified Puentes requires different resonant frequencies and Sharma teaches such frequencies; and/or (3) the range of 2 GHz to 18 GHz is more capable to penetrate in the human skin (see Sharma abstract); and/or (4) the resonant frequencies in the range of 2 GHz to 18 GHz display more reflection in the skin phantom model in the presence of a cancer cell and thus allows the detection of tumor very visible in the phantom (see Sharma § 3 Result and Discussion, § 3.2 Development of Skin Model and Result of the Sensor with Skin, ¶2).
The 2 GHz to 18 GHz range of the modified Puentes suggests the range of the present claim because 5 GHz and 15 GHz falls within the range of 1.5 to 5 GHz. See MPEP 2144.05: “In the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)”.
Claims 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Puentes, and in view of Gelfand, and in view of Jakoby et al., (WIPO Publication WO 2017/157690 – cited by Applicant, citing to translation from Espacenet), hereinafter Jakoby.
Regarding Claim 21, Puentes teaches a frequency multiplexed 2-dimensional sensor array using microstrip-line-excited split-ring resonators (SRRs) (see abstract and Figs. 1 and 12). Puentes teaches a method of imaging and treating skin conditions (see abstract and Figs. 1 and 12; see also pg. 1726, § VII. Measurements with the 2-D Sensor Array, ¶4, the sensor is contemplated operating in two modes, the first one with a low power to make the sensing of the dielectric properties of the tissue and once the abnormality was detected the sensor could switch to a second operation mode where the power could be increased and the malignant tissue heated, this technique is well known as thermal ablation; see also Puentes pg. 1720-1721, § I. Introduction and pg. 1725-1726, § VII. Measurements with the 2-D Sensor Array, the experimental 2-D sensor array is contemplated as being used with human organs in future developments, including for use with human skin; Figs. 12 and 20), comprising:
a dual-mode medical device of at least a diagnostic mode and a treatment mode for the dual-mode medical device (pg. 1726, § VII. Measurements with the 2-D Sensor Array, ¶4, the sensor is contemplated operating in two modes, the first one with a low power to make the sensing of the dielectric properties of the tissue and once the abnormality was detected the sensor could switch to a second operation mode where the power could be increased and the malignant tissue heated, this technique is well known as thermal ablation);
in the diagnostic mode, while a two-dimensional array of resonators (pg. 1724, § VI. 2D Sensor Array Design, §§ A. Design of the 2-D Sensor Array, the 2-D sensor array, formed on the upper surface of the dielectric substrate, such as RT/duroid 6010 with dielectric constant ε = 10.2; Figs. 12-13)
is in contact with a patient's skin (pg. 1720-1721, § I. Introduction and pg. 1725-1726, § VII. Measurements with the 2-D Sensor Array, the experimental 2-D sensor array is contemplated as being used with human organs in future developments, including for use with human skin; Figs. 12 and 20),
performing a first resonator-selective procedure (see generally Puentes pg. 1725-1726, § VII. Measurements with the 2-D Sensor Array; Figs. 18-20)
for each given resonator in the two-dimensional array of resonators, wherein the first resonator-selective procedure comprises sweeping a frequency of a respective signal supplied to a microstrip transmission line (pg. 1724, § VI. 2D Sensor Array Design, §§ A. Design of the 2-D Sensor Array, and pg. 1726, § VIII. Conclusion, the microstrip line coupled to the SRRs; Figs. 1 and 12-13) coupled to the given resonator, over a range of frequencies within which a loaded resonant frequency is expected to be found for the given resonator (pg. 1725-1726, § VII. Measurements with the 2-D Sensor Array, the application of frequencies to the 2-D sensor array to observe the shift in resonant frequency peak, the graphs in Figs. 18-20 indicate that at least frequencies ranging from 1.5 to 5 GHz were applied and observed, all of the pixels (i.e., resonators) are tested; Figs. 18-20),
detecting a current loaded resonant frequency for the given resonator (pg. 1725-1726, § VII. Measurements with the 2-D Sensor Array and Figs. 18-20, the frequency response measured to see the resonant frequency shift),
identify a tissue condition of the patient's skin at a current position of the selected resonator based at least in part on the current loaded resonant frequency (see pg. 1725-1726, § VII. Measurements with the 2-D Sensor Array and Figs. 18-20, the pixel showing the resonant frequency shift are identified).
Puentes teaches that the shift in resonant frequency may be used to identify changes in tissue condition, such as cancer (see generally Puentes pg. 1720-1721, § I. Introduction), but does not specifically teach classifying the response data to determine the condition, or the usage of an RF signal for communication.
Gelfand teaches a system with an implanted antenna that, in response to the antenna being actuated, generates a response signal indicating a resonant frequency response and/or an attenuation response, in which a shift in the resonant frequency response and/or the attenuation response indicative of a change in the physiological condition at the region inside the living body (see abstract, ¶[0053]-[0055], ¶[0058]-[0059], and ¶[0074]), in which the signals used to measure are in the microwave range, such as 433 MHz, 868 MHz, and 2.4 GHz (see ¶[0094]), in which the antenna is a RFID device (see ¶[0074]), in which the changes may be indicative of changes in blood flow, such as an endo leak (see ¶[0100]), in which the algorithm may involve a trained (i.e., data trend) artificial intelligence model (see ¶[0090] and ¶[0109]), in which RF signals may be utilized to transmit signals (see ¶[0041]-[0042] and ¶[0117]) and energy (see ¶[0118]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the trained artificial intelligence model involving the resonant frequency response and/or the attenuation response of Gelfand with the measured response data (i.e., the artificial intelligence model would be trained on this data in the modified Puentes) from the 2-D sensor array in the modified Puentes because (1) it is the application of a known technique to a known method ready for improvement to yield predictable results; and/or (2) the modified Puentes contemplates classifying tissue conditions based on the response data and Gelfand teaches one such modality of classifying the data; and/or (3) an artificial intelligence model, trained with the response data in the modified Puentes (necessary or the model would not work) may provide insights/connections not normally observable through standard algorithms/statistics.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the RF signaling and energy of Gelfand with signaling and energy providing in the modified Puentes because (1) it is the application of a known technique to a known method ready for improvement to yield predictable results; and/or (2) the modified Puentes requires signaling and providing energy and Gelfand teaches one such modality; and/or (3) RF signaling and energy transmission is a known in the art (i.e., RFID technology, etc.) and limits the battery size (i.e., can use smaller battery) or battery all together.
The modified Puentes does not teach the specifics of the second, treatment mode, or providing a control for an operator to select between the two modes.
Jakoby teaches a microwave applicator for the treatment of biological tissue with at least one ring-shaped resonator connective via a waveguide, such as a microstrip line (see abstract and Figs. 1-2),
a control for an operator to select between the two modes (¶[0069], ¶[0120], and claim 12, the switch 230 for switching between the measurement mode and the treatment mode; Fig. 5)
in which the applicator operates in two modes, a measurement mode to detect diseased tissue and a treatment mode to treat via thermal ablation (see ¶[0008] and ¶[0015]; Figs. 3-5),
in a diagnostic mode to transmit a low power transmit signal (TS) over a frequency range for resonance measurement, so as to identify diseased tissue via resonance shift (see ¶[0062]-[0068]; Figs. 3-6),
selecting a treatment frequency at or near the current loaded resonant frequency of a selected one of the resonators of the resonator array (¶[0068]-[0069] once the diagnosis is complete, the switch 230 is switched to the treatment mode in which the transmit signal TS is amplified via the high-frequency signal amplifier 220, which wouldn’t change the frequency, for transmitting the signal with a power of several watts; Figs. 3-5); and
applying energy at a treatment power to the given one of the plurality of microstrip transmission lines that couples to the selected one of the resonators to perform a hyperthermic treatment of the patient's skin at the current position of the selected one of the resonators (¶[0068]-[0070] once the high watt signal applied to the tissue through the specific resonator, so that thermal ablation is only applied to the disease tissue; Figs. 3-5).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the switch and treatment mode of Jakoby with the 12 pixel 2-D sensor array of the modified Puentes because (1) it is the application of a known technique to a known method ready for improvement to yield predictable results; and/or (2) the modified Puentes requires a treatment mode implementation and Jakoby teaches one such implementation; and/or (3) the thermal ablation would only be applied to the disease tissue, thus limiting damage to non-disease tissue (see Jakoby ¶[0070]); and/or (4) the switch provides an easy, cheap, and known element to implement the mode switching.
Regarding Claim 22, Puentes in view of Gelfand and Jakoby teaches the method of claim 21 as stated above. Puentes further teaches wherein multiple resonators of the two-dimensional array of resonators couple to a same microstrip transmission line (pg. 1724, § VI. 2D Sensor Array Design, §§ A. Design of the 2-D Sensor Array, and pg. 1726, § VIII. Conclusion, the microstrip line coupled to the SRRs; Figs. 1 and 12-13),
the multiple resonators that couple to the same microstrip transmission line having mutually differing physical configurations that result in each of the multiple resonators having an unloaded resonance frequency range that is substantially non-overlapping with an unloaded resonance frequency range of each other resonator of the multiple resonators (abstract, pg. 1724, § VI. 2D Sensor Array Design, §§ A. Design of the 2-D Sensor Array, the SRRs have different resonant frequencies, by varying the width, and are decoupled from one another, into the 12 pixels as shown in Fig. 1; Figs. 1 and 12-13).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Puentes in view of Guardiola García and Gelfand as applied to claim 10 above, and in view of van der Weide (US Patent 7,725,151 – cited by Applicant), hereinafter van der Weide.
Regarding Claim 11, Puentes in view of Guardiola García and Gelfand teaches the device of claim 10 as stated above. The modified Puentes is silent regarding generate a two-dimensional graphical representation of classified tissue condition for each resonator in the resonator array and the current position of that resonator.
Van der Weide teaches to map the boundary of an organ, such as skin, with dielectric contrast compared to normalized values, alongside optical imaging to form a two dimensional display of the absorption spectra on a pixel-by-pixel basis (see abstract and col. 4 ln. 17 – col. 5 ln. 5; Figs. 1-3), in which the resultant 2-D map shows contrast of the tissue condition (i.e., cancerous lesion) (see col. 4 ln. 6-13 and Fig. 5).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the pixel-by-pixel organ, such as skin, mapping of van der Weide with the 12 pixel 2-D sensor array of the modified Puentes because (1) it is the application of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results and/or (2) the map would provide an easy to understand/comprehend visual of the patient’s organ, such as skin, that would help the patient and the medical professional understand and visualize the patient’s specific condition and location thereof.
Claims 13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Puentes in view of Guardiola García and Gelfand as applied to claim 8 above, and in view of Jakoby.
Regarding Claim 13, Puentes in view of Guardiola García and Gelfand teaches the device of claim 8 as stated above. Puentes contemplates a dual-mode device (see abstract and Figs. 1 and 12; see also pg. 1726, § VII. Measurements with the 2-D Sensor Array, ¶4, the sensor is contemplated operating in two modes, the first one with a low power to make the sensing of the dielectric properties of the tissue and once the abnormality was detected the sensor could switch to a second operation mode where the power could be increased and the malignant tissue heated, this technique is well known as thermal ablation).
The modified Puentes teaches that RF energy is supplied to the microstrip lines of the sensor/ablation device (see Guardiola García ¶[0026], ¶[0041]-[0042], and ¶[0052]-[0057], the coupling of the antennas to the microstrips and implementation of the control signals may be via RF signals).
The modified Puentes does not teach the specifics of the second, treatment mode.
Jakoby teaches a microwave applicator for the treatment of biological tissue with at least one ring-shaped resonator connective via a waveguide, such as a microstrip line (see abstract and Figs. 1-2),
in which the applicator operates in two modes, a measurement mode to detect diseased tissue and a treatment mode to treat via thermal ablation (see ¶[0008] and ¶[0015]; Figs. 3-5),
in a diagnostic mode to transmit a low power transmit signal (TS) over a frequency range for resonance measurement, so as to identify diseased tissue via resonance shift (see ¶[0062]-[0068]; Figs. 3-6),
selecting a treatment frequency at or near the current loaded resonant frequency of a selected one of the resonators of the resonator array (¶[0068]-[0069] once the diagnosis is complete, the switch 230 is switched to the treatment mode in which the transmit signal TS is amplified via the high-frequency signal amplifier 220, which wouldn’t change the frequency, for transmitting the signal with a power of several watts; Figs. 3-5); and
applying energy at a treatment power to the given one of the plurality of microstrip transmission lines that couples to the selected one of the resonators to perform a hyperthermic treatment of the patient's skin at the current position of the selected one of the resonators (¶[0068]-[0070] once the high watt signal applied to the tissue through the specific resonator, so that thermal ablation is only applied to the disease tissue; Figs. 3-5).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the switch and treatment mode of Jakoby with the 12 pixel 2-D sensor array of the modified Puentes because (1) it is the application of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results; and/or (2) the modified Puentes requires a treatment mode implementation and Jakoby teaches one such implementation; and/or (3) the thermal ablation would only be applied to the disease tissue, thus limiting damage to non-disease tissue (see Jakoby ¶[0070]); and/or (4) the switch provides an easy, cheap, and known element to implement the mode switching.
Regarding Claim 15, Puentes in view of Guardiola García, Gelfand, and Jakoby teaches the device of claim 13 as stated above. The modified Puentes further teaches the controller circuit is further configured to, in the treatment mode, perform the second resonator-selective procedure for one or more other ones of the resonators of the resonator array (see Jakoby ¶[0068]-[0070], once the high watt signal applied to the tissue through the specific resonator, so that thermal ablation is only applied to the disease tissue; Figs. 3-5). Here, the thermal ablation is capable to be applied to any one of the pixels, so would only be applied to pixels indicating diseased tissue, which would include multiple pixels, i.e., at least two different pixels.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Puentes in view of Gelfand and Jakoby as applied to claim 22 above, and in view of Sharma.
Regarding Claim 23, Puentes in view of Gelfand and Jakoby teaches the method of claim 22 as stated above. Puentes generally teaches the unloaded resonant frequencies of the resonators of the resonator array lie in a range between 1.9 GHz and 4.5 GHz (pg. 1725-1726, § VII. Measurements with the 2-D Sensor Array, the application of frequencies to the 2-D sensor array to observe the shift in resonant frequency peak, the graphs in Figs. 18-20 indicate that the resonant frequencies range from 1.9 to 4.5 GHz; Figs. 18-20).
The modified Puentes does not specifically teach that the unloaded resonant frequencies of the multiple resonators each lie in a range between 5 GHz and 15 GHz.
Sharma teaches of a novel microwave sensor for detection of skin cancer (see abstract) in which various split ring resonators are proposed (see § 2 Proposed Ring Sensor Development), in which the resonant frequencies in the range of 2 GHz to 18 GHz display more reflection in the skin phantom model in the presence of a cancer cell and thus allows the detection of tumor very visible in the phantom (see abstract and § 3 Result and Discussion, see specifically § 3.2 Development of Skin Model and Result of the Sensor with Skin, ¶2).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the multiple resonant frequencies within the range of 2 GHz to 18 GHz of Sharma with the 12 pixel 2-D sensor array (i.e., the various resonant frequencies are achieved by the different pixels) of the modified Puentes because (1) it is the application of a known technique to a known method ready for improvement to yield predictable results; and/or (2) the modified Puentes requires different resonant frequencies and Sharma teaches such frequencies; and/or (3) the range of 2 GHz to 18 GHz is more capable to penetrate in the human skin (see Sharma abstract); and/or (4) the resonant frequencies in the range of 2 GHz to 18 GHz display more reflection in the skin phantom model in the presence of a cancer cell and thus allows the detection of tumor very visible in the phantom (see Sharma § 3 Result and Discussion, § 3.2 Development of Skin Model and Result of the Sensor with Skin, ¶2).
The 2 GHz to 18 GHz range of the modified Puentes suggests the range of the present claim because 5 GHz and 15 GHz falls within the range of 1.5 to 5 GHz. See MPEP 2144.05: “In the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)”.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Puentes in view of Gelfand and Jakoby as applied to claim 21 above, and in view of van der Weide.
Regarding Claim 24, Puentes in view of Gelfand and Jakoby teaches the method of claim 21 as stated above. The modified Puentes is silent regarding generating a two-dimensional graphical representation of classified tissue condition for each respective resonator in the two-dimensional array of resonators and the current position of the respective resonator.
Van der Weide teaches to map the boundary of an organ, such as skin, with dielectric contrast compared to normalized values, alongside optical imaging to form a two dimensional display of the absorption spectra on a pixel-by-pixel basis (see abstract and col. 4 ln. 17 – col. 5 ln. 5; Figs. 1-3), in which the resultant 2-D map shows contrast of the tissue condition (i.e., cancerous lesion) (see col. 4 ln. 6-13 and Fig. 5).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the pixel-by-pixel organ, such as skin, mapping of van der Weide with the 12 pixel 2-D sensor array of the modified Puentes because (1) it is the application of a known technique to a known method ready for improvement to yield predictable results and/or (2) the map would provide an easy to understand/comprehend visual of the patient’s organ, such as skin, that would help the patient and the medical professional understand and visualize the patient’s specific condition and location thereof.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Puentes in view of Guardiola García, Gelfand, and van der Weide as applied to claim 11 above, and in view of Shamir et al. (US Patent Application 2021/0196207), hereinafter Shamir.
Regarding Claim 12, Puentes in view of Guardiola García, Gelfand, and van der Weide teaches the device of claim 11 as stated above. The modified Puentes is silent regarding recurse the first resonator-selective procedure for each resonator in the resonator array; and update the two-dimensional graphical representation of classified tissue condition for the current position of each resonator.
Shamir teaches methods, systems, and apparatuses for associating dielectric properties with a patient model (see abstract and Figs. 1-3B), in which a 3-D map may be constructed based on one or more electric field simulations (see ¶[0054]-[0055], ¶[0058]-[0059], and ¶[0068]; Figs. 6 and 8A-8B), and may also map dielectric properties to tissue types/locations (see ¶[0068]), in which the mapping may involve a wrapper method, such as recursive feature elimination, which is a greedy optimization algorithm for finding the best features via ranking after all the features are exhausted, for the dielectric property and tissue type correlation, estimation, and/or identification (see ¶[0075]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the recursive feature elimination of Shamir with the 12 pixel 2-D map and dielectric property and tissue condition correlation, estimation, and/or identification of the artificial intelligence model of the modified Puentes because (1) it is the application of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results and/or (2) the recursive feature elimination would recurse/update the features (i.e., the map and displayed values) until the best ranked is displayed once all features have been exhausted, which would display a more accurate result (see Shamir ¶[0075]) as it improves machine learning/artificial intelligent model performance by removing the weakest features.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Puentes in view of Guardiola García, Gelfand, and Jakoby as applied to claim 13 above, and in view of Sterzer et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2012/0029359), hereinafter Sterzer.
Regarding Claim 14, Puentes in view of Guardiola García, Gelfand, and Jakoby teaches the device of claim 13 as stated above. The modified Puentes is silent regarding a temperature sensing circuit to monitor the patient's skin temperature at or near the current position of the selected one of the resonators.
Sterzer teaches a microwave handheld radiometer for measuring subsurface temperatures of a subject (see abstract and ¶[0067]-[0068]; Figs. 1-2), in which an IR sensor may measure the skin temperature of the subject (see ¶[0089] and Figs. 19-20), in which the device may be utilized for the monitoring and controlling therapeutic heating such as hyperthermia, treatments of cancer and thermal ablation of cancers (see ¶[0063]; Figs. 2 and 20).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the tissue monitoring and the controlling of therapeutic heating such as hyperthermia and/or treatments of cancer and thermal ablation of cancers of Sterzer with the treatment mode (i.e., thermal ablation) of the modified Puentes because (1) it is the application of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results and/or (2) the monitoring/control of temperature at the ablation tissue (i.e., the skin) would assist the medical professional to monitor/ensure that only appropriate temperatures are utilized.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Puentes in view of Guardiola García, Gelfand, and Jakoby as applied to claim 13 above, and in view of Hancock (US Patent Application Publication 2012/0035688 – cited by Applicant), hereinafter Hancock.
Regarding Claim 16, Puentes in view of Guardiola García, Gelfand, and Jakoby teaches the device of claim 13 as stated above. The modified Puentes is silent regarding the controller circuit is further configured to, concurrently with the treatment mode using the selected one of the resonators, perform the first resonator-selective procedure for one or more of the resonators of the resonator array.
Hancock teaches a skin tissue measurement/treatment apparatus (see abstract and Fig. 1), in which the apparatus may operate in a measurement mode and a treatment mode, in which in the measurement mode, much less power is output so as to avoid tissue damage, compared to the treatment mode (see ¶[0023]-[0024]), in which the measurement/treatment are carried out via an array of a plurality of monopole antennas (see ¶[0007] and ¶[0011]; Fig. 7), in which each monopole antenna may be individually controllable dual channel arrangement, so that each individual monopole antenna may operate in the measurement/treatment mode independent of its neighbors (see ¶[0020], ¶[0025]-[0026], ¶[0117], and ¶[0119]; Figs. 8-9).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the independent antenna (i.e., pixel) operation modality of Hancock with the 12 pixel 2-D map detection/treatment modes of the modified Puentes because (1) it is the application of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results and/or (2) it provides selective treatment to only areas that need it without needing to supply the higher power to all antennas/pixels (see Hancock ¶[0025]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN D. MORONESO whose telephone number is (571)272-8055. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8:30AM - 6:00 PM, MST.
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 M. 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.
/J.D.M./ Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/JENNIFER ROBERTSON/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3791