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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 16 July 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding to 101 rejections, applicant argues that claims cannot be directed to a mental process because the claimed features cannot practically performed in the human mind, in view of amendment filed on 16 July 2026 (pages 9-10) and further states that claims are directed to a practical application as they provide an improvement to the technological environment of computer-based interactive burn percentage determination and improved user interface (pages 11-12).
However, the examiner respectfully disagrees.
As indicated in previous office action, claim limitations of receiving burn indication and determining the burn percentage covers the performance of the limitation in the mind as it recites steps of observing the image with a burn to determine an area of burn, and determine a burned percentage by using a mathematical formula of a percentage by dividing determined area of the burn by surface area of the segment of the patient (e.g. burned area in the ankle/surface area of an ankle), and determine surface area by looking up a reference table of surface area corresponding to specific age and weight. These actions fall under the Mental Processes category defined in MPEP 2106.04(A)(2) as “concept performed in the human mind (including observation, evaluation, judgement and opinion)”.
The examiner submits that claim recites the following additional elements:
presenting, via processing circuitry, and on a display, an individual image of at least one segment of a body schematically representing an actual body of the patient, wherein the individual image of the at least one segment of the body is less than a full image of the body and presented on the display in isolation from a rest of the body,
allowing, via the processing circuitry and on the display, a user to perform digital input of a burn indication representing burned areas that have sustained a burn in the actual body of the patient, wherein the digital input includes shading or selecting corresponding parts of the individual image of the at least one segment of the body presented on the display
This claim element is a mere data collection step which amounts to a pre-solution insignificant activity. The amended steps of presenting and allowing user input for indicating burn indication is performed in order to gather data for the recited mental process step and is a necessary precursor for all uses of the recited abstract idea since no determination of burn percentage could be carried out without first gathering necessary image data of interest (such as burned area of the body in the image).
These additional elements, taken individually or in combination, merely amount to insignificant pre/post-solution activities and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This claim is therefore directed to an abstract idea.
The use of processing circuitry is recited for performing the mental process set forth above and does not integrate the subtract mental process into a practical application. These are generic hardware/software components invoked merely as a tool to perform the subtract steps and does not add meaningful limitations. The claims do not specify any particular configuration or improvement in the processor/computer itself, just simply applying the subtract task with a computer. This claim is therefore directed to an abstract idea.
With respect to argument for improvement in technology, the examiner submits that improvements claim does not recite any actual performance steps to carry out treatment/therapeutic method (see MPEP 2106.04(d)(2)) or applying the judicial exception in meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of judicial exception to a particular technological environment (see MPEP 2106.04(d)(2) and 2106.05 (e)).
Therefore, 101 rejection is maintained.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to amended claims 1, 8, 15, 18, and new claims 21-23 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 1-2,4-9,11-16, and 18-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Statutory Category: Yes - The claim recites a method for determining a burn percentage of a patient, thus is a method.
Step 2A, Prong 1, Judicial Exception: Yes - The claim 1 recites the limitations:
“receiving, a burn indication representing areas within the at least one segment of the body that have sustained a burn;”
“determining, a burned percentage of the at least one segment of the body based on the burn indication;”
“determining, a surface area of the at least one segment of the body based on an age of the patient and a weight of the patient;” and
“determining, the burn percentage of the patient based on the burned percentage of the at least one segment of the body and the surface area of the at least one segment of the body.”
These limitations, as drafted, is a process step that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the performance of the limitation in the mind as it recites steps of observing the image with a burn to determine an area of burn, and determine a burned percentage by using a mathematical formula of a percentage by dividing determined area of the burn by surface area of the segment of the patient (e.g. burned area in the ankle/surface area of an ankle), and determine surface area by looking up a reference table of surface area corresponding to specific age and weight. These actions fall under the Mental Processes category defined in MPEP 2106.04(A)(2) as “concept performed in the human mind (including observation, evaluation, judgement and opinion)”. A human, such as surgeon and/or physician, could mentally perform tasks of determining burned area (i.e. by counting pixels that make up burned area in the image), and surface area by looking up a table of surface area in relationship with age and weight, and can perform calculation of a percentage using known formula of percentage by dividing determined burned area over surface area by using pen and paper. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind and/or being performed with the aid of a pen and paper. Accordingly, the claim recites a mental process-type and mathematical concepts abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2, Integrated into Practical Application: No - The claim recites the following additional elements:
presenting, via processing circuitry, and on a display, an individual image of at least one segment of a body schematically representing an actual body of the patient, wherein the individual image of the at least one segment of the body is less than a full image of the body and presented on the display in isolation from a rest of the body,
allowing, via the processing circuitry and on the display, a user to perform digital input of a burn indication representing burned areas that have sustained a burn in the actual body of the patient, wherein the digital input includes shading or selecting corresponding parts of the individual image of the at least one segment of the body presented on the display
This claim elements are a mere data collection step which amounts to a pre-solution insignificant activity. The amended steps of presenting and allowing user input for indicating burn indication is performed in order to gather data for the recited mental process step and is a necessary precursor for all uses of the recited abstract idea since no determination of burn percentage could be carried out without first gathering necessary image data of interest (such as burned area of the body in the image).
The use of processing circuitry is recited for performing the mental process set forth above and does not integrate the subtract mental process into a practical application. These are generic hardware/software components invoked merely as a tool to perform the subtract steps and does not add meaningful limitations. The claims do not specify any particular configuration or improvement in the processor/computer itself, just simply applying the subtract task with a computer. This claim is therefore directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B, Inventive Concept: No - Similarly to Step 2A Prong 2, the additional claim elements merely recite insignificant extra-solution activities, which do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim. In light of the above, claim 1 is ineligible.
Claims 2, 4-7, and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 and Step 2A, Prong 1, Judicial Exception are discussed above in the claim 1 rejection.
Claims 2-7 and 21-23 recite the following elements: “wherein the at least one segment of the body is an anterior view or a posterior view (claim 2),” “wherein the burn indication includes an optical image of the burn on the patient, the optical image different from the individual image of the at least one segment of the body (claim 4),” “wherein the surface area of the at least one segment of the body is determined via a look-up table (claim 5),” “wherein the look-up table includes a distribution of body surface area based on the age of the patient and the weight of the patient (claim 6),” “wherein the age of the patient is an age in months (claim 7),” “obtaining a relative size of the at least one segment of the body based on the age of the patient and the weight of the patient, wherein the relative size is preserved in the presenting of the individual image of the at least one segment (Claim 21),” “displaying, via the processing circuitry and on the display, the burn percentage of the patient (claim 22), “and “wherein the digital input is performed by the user on a mobile device (claim 23).”
These claim element refers to image acquisition view, image of burned body segment and surface area look-up table format with distribution of surface area with age and weight in months, obtaining relative size of the segment of the body and preserving the size in the image are a mere data collection step and selecting a particular type of data to be collected for analysis, which amounts to a pre-solution insignificant activity. This pre-solution insignificant activity does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor does it contain an inventive step.
In light of above, claims 2 and 4-7 are ineligible.
Amended claim elements in claims 22-23 refers to displaying the result and a mobile device, which is mere displaying and outputting the result of abstract idea and amounts to a post-solution insignificant activity. This post-solution insignificant activity does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor does it contain an inventive step.
In light of above, claims 21-23 are ineligible.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Statutory Category: Yes - The claim recites an apparatus for determining a burn percentage of a patient, thus is an apparatus.
Step 2A, Prong 1, Judicial Exception: Yes - The claim 1 recites the limitations:
“receive a burn indication representing areas within the at least one segment of the body that sustained a burn,”
“determine a burned percentage of the at least one segment of the body based on the burn indication;”
“determine a surface area of the at least one segment of the body based on an age of the patient and a weight of the patient;” and
“determine the burn percentage of the patient based on the burned percentage of the at least one segment of the body and the surface area of the at least one segment of the body.”
These limitations, as drafted, is a process step that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the performance of the limitation in the mind as it recites steps of observing the image with a burn to determine an area of burn, and determine a burned percentage by using a mathematical formula of a percentage by dividing determined area of the burn by surface area of the segment of the patient (e.g. burned area in the ankle/surface area of an ankle), and determine surface area by looking up a reference table of surface area corresponding to specific age and weight. These actions fall under the Mental Processes category defined in MPEP 2106.04(A)(2) as “concept performed in the human mind (including observation, evaluation, judgement and opinion)”. A human, such as surgeon and/or physician, could mentally perform tasks of determining burned area and surface area by looking up a table of surface area in relationship with age and weight, and can perform calculation of a percentage using known formula of percentage by dividing determined burned area over surface area. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind and/or being performed with the aid of a pen and paper. Accordingly, the claim recites a mental process-type and mathematical concepts abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2, Integrated into Practical Application: No - The claim recites the following additional elements:
present on a display, an individual image of at least one segment of a body schematically representing an actual body of the patient, wherein the individual image of the at least one segment of the body is less than a full image of the body and presented on the display in isolation from a rest of the body,
allow, on the display, a user to perform digital input of a burn indication representing burned areas that have sustained a burn in the actual body of the patient, wherein the digital input includes shading or selecting corresponding parts of the individual image of the at least one segment of the body presented on the display
This claim elements are a mere data collection step which amounts to a pre-solution insignificant activity. The amended steps of presenting and allowing user input for indicating burn indication is performed in order to gather data for the recited mental process step and is a necessary precursor for all uses of the recited abstract idea since no determination of burn percentage could be carried out without first gathering necessary image data of interest (such as burned area of the body in the image).
The use of processing circuitry is recited for performing the mental process set forth above and does not integrate the subtract mental process into a practical application. These are generic hardware/software components invoked merely as a tool to perform the subtract steps and does not add meaningful limitations. The claims do not specify any particular configuration or improvement in the processor/computer itself, just simply applying the subtract task with a computer. This claim is therefore directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B, Inventive Concept: No - Similarly to Step 2A Prong 2, the additional claim elements merely recite insignificant extra-solution activities, which do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim. In light of the above, claim 8 is ineligible.
Claims 9 and 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 and Step 2A, Prong 1, Judicial Exception are discussed above in the claim 8 rejection.
Claims 9 and 11-14 recites the following elements: “wherein the at least one segment of the body is an anterior view or a posterior view (claim 9),” “wherein the burn indication includes an optical image of the burn on the patient, the optical image different from the individual image of the at least one segment of the body (claim 11),” “wherein the surface area of the at least one segment of the body is determined via a look-up table (claim 12),” “wherein the look-up table includes a distribution of body surface area based on the age of the patient and the weight of the patient (claim 13),” and “wherein the age of the patient is an age in months (claim 14).”
This claim element refers to image acquisition view, image of burned body segment and surface area look-up table format with distribution of surface area with age and weight in months, and is a mere data collection step and selecting a particular type of data to be collected for analysis, which amounts to a pre-solution insignificant activity. This pre-solution insignificant activity does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, nor does it contain an inventive step. In light of above, claims 9 and 11-14 are ineligible.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Statutory Category: Yes - The claim recites a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium for storing computer-readable instructions that, when executed by a computer, cause the computer to perform a method for determining a burn percentage of a patient, thus is a method.
Step 2A, Prong 1, Judicial Exception: Yes - The claim 1 recites the limitations:
“receiving, a burn indication representing areas within the at least one segment of the body that have sustained a burn;”
“determining, a burned percentage of the at least one segment of the body based on the burn indication;”
“determining, a surface area of the at least one segment of the body based on an age of the patient and a weight of the patient;” and
“determining, the burn percentage of the patient based on the burned percentage of the at least one segment of the body and the surface area of the at least one segment of the body.”
These limitations, as drafted, is a process step that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the performance of the limitation in the mind as it recites steps of observing the image with a burn to determine an area of burn, and determine a burned percentage by using a mathematical formula of a percentage by dividing determined area of the burn by surface area of the segment of the patient (e.g. burned area in the ankle/surface area of an ankle), and determine surface area by looking up a reference table of surface area corresponding to specific age and weight. These actions fall under the Mental Processes category defined in MPEP 2106.04(A)(2) as “concept performed in the human mind (including observation, evaluation, judgement and opinion)”. A human, such as surgeon and/or physician, could mentally perform tasks of determining burned area and surface area by looking up a table of surface area in relationship with age and weight, and can perform calculation of a percentage using known formula of percentage by dividing determined burned area over surface area. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind and/or being performed with the aid of a pen and paper. Accordingly, the claim recites a mental process-type and mathematical concepts abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2, Integrated into Practical Application: No - The claim recites the following additional elements:
presenting, via processing circuitry, and on a display, an individual image of at least one segment of a body schematically representing an actual body of the patient, wherein the individual image of the at least one segment of the body is less than a full image of the body and presented on the display in isolation from a rest of the body,
allowing, via the processing circuitry and on the display, a user to perform digital input of a burn indication representing burned areas that have sustained a burn in the actual body of the patient, wherein the digital input includes shading or selecting corresponding parts of the individual image of the at least one segment of the body presented on the display
These claim elements are a mere data collection step which amounts to a pre-solution insignificant activity. The amended steps of presenting and allowing user input for indicating burn indication is performed in order to gather data for the recited mental process step and is a necessary precursor for all uses of the recited abstract idea since no determination of burn percentage could be carried out without first gathering necessary image data of interest (such as burned area of the body in the image).
The use of processing circuitry is recited for performing the mental process set forth above and does not integrate the subtract mental process into a practical application. These are generic hardware/software components invoked merely as a tool to perform the subtract steps and do not add meaningful limitations. The claims do not specify any particular configuration or improvement in the processor/computer itself, just simply applying the subtract task with a computer. This claim is therefore directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B, Inventive Concept: No - Similarly to Step 2A Prong 2, the additional claim elements merely recite insignificant extra-solution activities, which do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim. In light of the above, claim 15 is ineligible.
Claims 16 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 and Step 2A, Prong 1, Judicial Exception are discussed above in the claim 15 rejection.
Claims 16 and 18-20 recite the following elements: “wherein the at least one segment of the body is an anterior view or a posterior view (claim 16),” “wherein the burn indication includes an optical image of the burn on the patient, the optical image different from the individual image of the at least one segment of the body (claim 18),” “wherein the surface area of the at least one segment of the body is determined via a look-up table (claim 19),” “wherein the look-up table includes a distribution of body surface area based on the age of the patient and the weight of the patient (claim 20).”
This claim element refers to image acquisition view, image of burned body segment and surface area look-up table format with distribution of surface area with age and weight in months, and is a mere data collection step and selecting a particular type of data to be collected for analysis, which amounts to a pre-solution insignificant activity. This pre-solution insignificant activity does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor does it contain an inventive step. In light of above, claims 16 and 18-20 are ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The following rejection has been modified in view of applicant's arguments and/or amendments.
Claims 1-2, 8-9, 15-16, and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DiMaio et al.,” US 2017/0079530 (hereinafter DiMaio).
Regarding to claim 1, DiMaio teaches a method for determining a burn percentage of a patient, the method comprising:
presenting, via processing circuitry (processor [0172]-[0173], [0591]) and on a display, an image of at least one segment of a body (image of the subject or a portion [0141]) schematically representing an actual body of the patient, wherein the individual image of the at least one segment of the body is less than a full image of the body and presented on the display in isolation from a rest of the body (an adjusted addition of areas may be used to refine the percentage of burned, image capturing chest area is used to analyze regions [0149]; a separate image that is an image of the hand [0154]; [0156], areas may need to be estimated using interpolation techniques to account for regions not imaged, parts of the subject may have been accidentally omitted from imaging or omitted because they are clearly not burned or otherwise afflicted with the condition being assessed [0157]).
receiving, via the processing circuitry, a burn indication representing areas within the at least one segment of the body that have sustained a burn (images with areas with burn [0037] and [0144]);
determining, via the processing circuitry, a burned percentage of the at least one segment of the body based on the burn indication (estimate of a percentage of total burned body surface area [0038]);
determining, via the processing circuitry, a surface area of the at least one segment of the body based on an age of the patient and a weight of the patient (age of the subject may be effectively used in an estimation of relative percentage of body surface area using a Lund-Browder Chart and other data including weight [0161]); and
determining, via the processing circuitry, the burn percentage of the patient based on the burned percentage of the at least one segment of the body and the surface area of the at least one segment of the body (% TBSA afflicted is defined as the surface area of afflicted tissue region by the total body surface area [0120]).
With respect to limitations of “shading or selecting corresponding parts,” Dimaio further teaches shading or selecting corresponding parts of the individual image of the at least one segment of the body presented on the display (different colors in the image representing severity of burns [0146]; orange for shallow burn and red for a burn [0490]).
In different embodiments, DiMaio does disclose receiving input from the user to control the display outputs and performs the analysis and classification of image pixels ([0173]) and UI can be used to trace the outline of the subject using a mouse and cursor in the initial image ([0145]), thus reads on claimed “allowing a user to perform digital input wherein the digital input includes selecting.”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify highlighting or selecting corresponding parts of the individual image of the at least one segment of the body presented on the display. as taught by DiMaio to incorporate teaching of user input, since user interface for selecting region of interest in the image was well known in the art as taught by DiMaio. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by DiMaio with no change in their respective functions, using its user input to highlight the burned area in the images, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. The motivation would have been to provide user input for analyzing the data ([0173]), and there was reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding to claims 2 and 21-22, DiMaio teaches all limitations of claim 1 as set forth above.
DiMaio further teaches following limitations:
Of claim 2, wherein the at least one segment of the body is an anterior view or a posterior view (front facing and back facing [0144] and [0146]).
Of claim 21, obtaining a relative size of the at least one segment of the body based on the age and weight of the patient (head, neck and arm each estimated to be 9% of total body surface area [0158]; Rules of Nin estimation, age and weight of the patient inputted for calculation [0161]) and wherein the relative size is preserved in the present of the individual image of the at least one segment (Figure 3 shows relative size is preserved while presented).
Of claim 22, displaying, via the processing circuitry and on the display, the burn percentage of the patient ( Figure 3)
Regarding to claim 8, DiMaio teaches an apparatus for determining a burn percentage of a patient, comprising:
processing circuitry (processors circuits [0590]) configured to:
present an image of at least one segment of a body (image of the subject or a portion [0141]) ]) and on a display, an image of at least one segment of a body (image of the subject or a portion [0141]) schematically representing an actual body of the patient, wherein the individual image of the at least one segment of the body is less than a full image of the body and presented on the display in isolation from a rest of the body (an adjusted addition of areas may be used to refine the percentage of burned, image capturing chest area is used to analyze regions [0149]; a separate image that is an image of the hand [0154]; [0156], areas may need to be estimated using interpolation techniques to account for regions not imaged, parts of the subject may have been accidentally omitted from imaging or omitted because they are clearly not burned or otherwise afflicted with the condition being assessed [0157]).
receive a burn indication representing areas within the at least one segment of the body that have sustained a burn (images with areas with burn [0037] and [0144]);
determine a burned percentage of the at least one segment of the body based on the burn indication (estimate of a percentage of total burned body surface area [0038]);
determine a surface area of the at least one segment of the body based on an age of the patient and a weight of the patient (age of the subject may be effectively used in an estimation of relative percentage of body surface area using a Lund-Browder Chart and other data including weight [0161]); and
determine the burn percentage of the patient based on the burned percentage of the at least one segment of the body and the surface area of the at least one segment of the body (% TBSA afflicted is defined as the surface area of afflicted tissue region by the total body surface area [0120]).
With respect to limitations of “shading or selecting corresponding parts,” Dimaio further teaches shading or selecting corresponding parts of the individual image of the at least one segment of the body presented on the display (different colors in the image representing severity of burns [0146]; orange for shallow burn and red for a burn [0490]).
In different embodiments, DiMaio does disclose receiving input from the user to control the display outputs and performs the analysis and classification of image pixels ([0173]) and UI can be used to trace the outline of the subject using a mouse and cursor in the initial image ([0145]), thus reads on claimed “allowing a user to perform digital input wherein the digital input includes selecting.”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify highlighting or selecting corresponding parts of the individual image of the at least one segment of the body presented on the display. as taught by DiMaio to incorporate teaching of user input, since user interface for selecting region of interest in the image was well known in the art as taught by DiMaio. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by DiMaio with no change in their respective functions, using its user input to highlight the burned area in the images, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. The motivation would have been to provide user input for analyzing the data ([0173]), and there was reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding to claim 9, DiMaio teaches all limitations of claim 1 as set forth above.
DiMaio further teaches following limitations:
Of claim 9, wherein the at least one segment of the body is an anterior view or a posterior view (front facing and back facing [0144] and [0146]).
Regarding to claim 15, DiMaio teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium for storing computer- readable instructions that, when executed by a computer (steps of a method or algorithm implemented in a processor-executable software module [0592]), cause the computer to perform a method for determining a burn percentage of a patient, the method comprising:
presenting, via processing circuitry, an image of at least one segment of a body (image of the subject or a portion [0141]);
receiving, via the processing circuitry, a burn indication representing areas within the at least one segment of the body that have sustained a burn (images with areas with burn [0037] and [0144]);
determining, via the processing circuitry, a burned percentage of the at least one segment of the body based on the burn indication (estimate of a percentage of total burned body surface area [0038]);
determining, via the processing circuitry, a surface area of the at least one segment of the body based on an age of the patient and a weight of the patient (age of the subject may be effectively used in an estimation of relative percentage of body surface area using a Lund-Browder Chart and other data including weight [0161]); and
determining, via the processing circuitry, the burn percentage of the patient based on the burned percentage of the at least one segment of the body and the surface area of the at least one segment of the body (% TBSA afflicted is defined as the surface area of afflicted tissue region by the total body surface area [0120]).
With respect to limitations of “shading or selecting corresponding parts,” Dimaio further teaches shading or selecting corresponding parts of the individual image of the at least one segment of the body presented on the display (different colors in the image representing severity of burns [0146]; orange for shallow burn and red for a burn [0490]).
In different embodiments, DiMaio does disclose receiving input from the user to control the display outputs and performs the analysis and classification of image pixels ([0173]) and UI can be used to trace the outline of the subject using a mouse and cursor in the initial image ([0145]), thus reads on claimed “allowing a user to perform digital input wherein the digital input includes selecting.”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify highlighting or selecting corresponding parts of the individual image of the at least one segment of the body presented on the display. as taught by DiMaio to incorporate teaching of user input, since user interface for selecting region of interest in the image was well known in the art as taught by DiMaio. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by DiMaio with no change in their respective functions, using its user input to highlight the burned area in the images, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. The motivation would have been to provide user input for analyzing the data ([0173]), and there was reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding to claim 16, DiMaio teaches all limitations of claim 15 as set forth above.
DiMaio further teaches following limitations:
Of claim 16, wherein the at least one segment of the body is an anterior view or a posterior view (front facing and back facing [0144] and [0146]).
Claims 4, 11, 18, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DiMaio as applied to claims 1, 8, and 15 above, and further in view of “Argenta et al.,” US 2022/0008001 (hereinafter Argenta).
Regarding to claims 4, 11, and 18, DiMaio teaches all limitations of claims 1, 8, and 15 as set forth above.
DiMaio further discloses wherein the burn indication includes an optical image of the burn on the patient ([0004]) but does not explicitly disclose that the optical image different from the individual image of the at least one segment of the body.
However, in the analogous field of optical image analysis for burns, Argenta teaches camera images wherein plurality of images with background removed to form a composite image, to determine percentage of burns ([0058] and [0065] Figures 5B).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the image displayed as taught by DiMaio to incorporate teaching of Argenta, since composite image indicating TBSA percentage well known in the art as taught by Argenta. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by DiMaio with no change in their respective functions, using plurality of optical images and creating a composite image with burned percentage, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. The motivation would have been to provide determination of burned percentage based on the actual patient shape and size to closely represent the specific patient ([0058] and [0065]), and there was reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding to claim 23, DiMaio teaches all limitations of claim 1 as set forth above.
DiMaio does not further teach mobile device.
However, in the analogous field of optical image analysis for burns, Argenta teaches a mobile device such as a smartphone or table that is equipped with user input/interface such as touchscreen integrated in the computer (Smartphone) ([0025]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to computing unit and user interface by DiMaio to incorporate teaching of Argenta, since smartphone was well known in the art as taught by Argenta. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by DiMaio with no change in their respective functions, using smartphone as user interface, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. The motivation would have been to provide simplified and portable computing device ([0025]) and there was reasonable expectation of success.
Claims 5-7, 12-14, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DiMaio as applied to claims 1, 8, and 15 above, and further in view of “Francis et al.,” US 2008/0052317 (hereinafter Francis).
Regarding to claims 5, 12, and 19, DiMaio teaches all limitations of claims 1, 8, and 15 as set forth above.
DiMaio teaches using charts to determine surface area ([0158]) and using dynamic library of patient data, a reference library of images with burns ([0200] and [0229]), but does not explicitly disclose a look-up table.
However, in the analogous field of endeavor in medical calculation method and apparatus, Francis discloses calculating dose of medication based on using known surface area to patient’s height and weight or by calling information from storage in a look up table in the database ([0054]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify a Lund-Browder Chart as taught by DiMaio to incorporate teaching of Francis, since using look up table was well known in the art as taught by Francis. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by DiMaio with no change in their respective functions, implementing a Lund-Browder Chart in a look up table, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. The motivation would have been to reduce the error and amount of time to compute medical parameters ([0096]), and there was reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding to claims 6, 13, and 20, DiMaio and Francis together teach all limitations of claims 5, 12, and 19 as set forth above.
DiMaio teaches a Lund-Browder Chart using age and other data including weight ([0161]), thus reads on distribution of body surface area based on age and weight as claimed, but it is not in thew form of look-up-table. However, as set forth for claim 5, Francis teaches using a look up table.
Thus, DiMaio can formulate its Lund-Browder chart in look up table format to call the information from storage ([0054]).
Regarding to claims 7 and 14, DiMaio and Francis together teach all limitations of claims 6 and 13 as set forth above.
DiMaio further teaches wherein the age of the patient is an age in months ( age 7.2 months [0294]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
“Argenta et al.,” (US 2022/0008001) teaches image of burns and determine percentage of burned surface using the image data ([0058]).
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PATRICIA J PARK whose telephone number is (571)270-1788. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8 am - 3 pm.
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, Pascal Bui-Pho can be reached at 571-272-2714. 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.
/PATRICIA J PARK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3798
Prosecution Insights