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 with respect to claim(s) 1, 13, and 14 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.
Applicant’s amendments and arguments on pages 6-7 render the claims no longer interpreted under 35 USC 112(f).
Applicant’s amendment renders the rejection under 35 USC 112 moot. The rejection under 35 USC 112 is withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1 is an apparatus claim, but lines 8-10 of the claim recite function without any structure.
detection filtering configured to filter light passing through the optical opening, the detection filtering being configured to block light of the first band of wavelengths and to pass light of at least near true color
As there is no structure, this recitation does not limit the claim. It is suggested to amend the claim to recite “a filter configured for detection filtering configured to filter light passing through the optical opening, the detection filtering being configured to block light of the first band of wavelengths and to pass light of at least near true color”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1),(a)(2) as being anticipated by Liang et al. (US20090181339A1), hereinafter “Liang”.
Regarding claim 1, Liang discloses a tissue imaging apparatus (abstract, Figs. 4-5) comprising:
an optical opening (as shown in Fig. 5, paragraphs [0042]-[0043], [0063]);
a plurality of light sources including three groups of light sources arranged about the optical opening (ref 12a top, ref 12a bottom, ref 12b, paragraphs [0042], [0063]), wherein first and second groups of light sources (refs 12a top, 12a bottom) are configured to emit white light (paragraphs [0038], [0040]), and a third group of light sources (ref 12b) is configured to emit light of a first band of wavelengths narrower than a band of wavelengths of visible light (paragraph [0038]-[0039]);
a detection polarizer configured to polarize light passing through the optical opening (Fig. 4, ref 44, paragraph [0039]);
detection filtering configured to filter light passing through the optical opening (ref 56, paragraph [0039]), the detection filtering being configured to block light of the first band of wavelengths and to pass light of at least near true color (paragraph [0039]); and
a source polarizer configured to polarize light emitted from the first group of light sources (ref 42a, paragraph [0040]).
Regarding claim 2, Liang discloses wherein an orientation of polarization of the detection polarizer and an orientation of polarization of the source polarizer are mutually orthogonal (paragraph [0040]).
Regarding claim 3, Liang discloses wherein the plurality of light sources includes a fourth group of light sources configured to emit light of a second band of wavelengths narrower than the band of wavelengths of visible light (ref 12d, paragraph [0037]).
Regarding claim 4, Liang discloses wherein the detection filtering is configured to block light of the second band of wavelengths (paragraph [0039]).
Regarding claim 5, Liang discloses wherein the light sources of the same group are evenly distributed about the optical opening (paragraph [0042]).
Regarding claim 6, Liang discloses comprising circuitry configured to activate one group of light sources at a time (paragraph [0056]).
Regarding claim 7, Liang discloses wherein the first band of wavelengths is in a band of 380 nm through 420 nm (paragraph [0037]).
Regarding claim 8, Liang discloses wherein the detection filtering includes at least one of a long-pass, short-pass, band-pass, or notch optical filter (paragraph [0039]).
Regarding claim 9, Liang discloses wherein the source polarizer is configured to polarize light emitted from at least one of the third or fourth groups of light sources (as shown in Fig. 5, ref 42, covering ref 12d).
Regarding claim 10, Liang discloses wherein the detection filtering is configured to selectively filter light passing through the optical opening (paragraph [0039]).
Regarding claim 11, Liang discloses comprising an image capture device configured to capture an image through the optical opening (ref 68, paragraph [0039]).
Regarding claim 12, Liang discloses a skin analysis system comprising the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the tissue is skin (If the body of a claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all of the limitations of the claimed invention, and the preamble merely states, for example, the purpose or intended use of the invention, rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations, then the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. Shoes by Firebug LLC v. Stride Rite Children’s Grp., LLC, 962 F.3d 1362, 2020 USPQ2d 10701 (Fed. Cir. 2020). See MPEP 2111.02. Furthermore, [i]nclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims.” In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963). See MPEP 2115).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Claims 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liang, and further in view of Bandic et al. (US 2008/0194928 A1), hereinafter “Bandic”.
Regarding claim 13, Liang teaches a tissue imaging method (abstract, Figs. 4-5) comprising:
illuminating a tissue with polarized white light (paragraphs [0038], [0040]) emitted from a first group of light sources (ref 12a top, paragraphs [0042], [0063]) arranged about an optical opening (as shown in Fig. 5, paragraphs [0042]-[0043], [0063]) of a tissue imaging apparatus (Figs. 4, 5, paragraph [0038]);
illuminating the tissue with white light emitted from a second group of light sources arranged about the optical opening (ref 12a bottom, paragraphs [0038], [0040]), [0042], [0063]);
illuminating the tissue with light of a first band of wavelengths narrower than a band of wavelengths of visible light (paragraph [0038]-[0039]), said light emitted from a third group of light sources arranged about the optical opening (ref 12b);
polarizing light passing through the optical opening (Fig. 4, ref 44, paragraph [0039]); and
filtering light passing through the optical opening so as to block light of the first band of wavelengths and to pass light of at least near true color (ref 56, paragraph [0039]).
Liang is silent regarding illuminating the tissue with unpolarized white light emitted from a second group of light sources arranged about the optical opening.
However, Bandic teaches a tissue imaging method (abstract) including illuminating the tissue with unpolarized white light emitted from a second group of light sources (paragraph [0041] teaches both polarized and unpolarized light).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of illuminating the tissue with unpolarized white light emitted from a second group of light sources arranged about the optical opening in order to standard white light images of skin, as it would appear to the naked eye, as taught by Applicant Admitted Prior Art, Applicant’s paragraph [0003].
Regarding claim 14, Liang non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having stored thereon instructions for causing a system (abstract, Figs. 4-5) to:
illuminate a tissue with polarized white light (paragraphs [0038], [0040]) emitted from a first group of light sources (ref 12a top, paragraphs [0042], [0063]) arranged about an optical opening (as shown in Fig. 5, paragraphs [0042]-[0043], [0063]) of a tissue imaging apparatus (Figs. 4, 5, paragraph [0038]);
illuminate the tissue with white light emitted from a second group of light sources arranged about the optical opening (ref 12a bottom, paragraphs [0038], [0040]), [0042], [0063]);
illuminate the tissue with light of a first band of wavelengths narrower than a band of wavelengths of visible light (paragraph [0038]-[0039]), said light emitted from a third group of light sources arranged about the optical opening (ref 12b);
polarize light passing through the optical opening (Fig. 4, ref 44, paragraph [0039]); and
filter light passing through the optical opening so as to block light of the first band of wavelengths and to pass light of at least near true color (ref 56, paragraph [0039]).
Liang is silent regarding illuminating the tissue with unpolarized white light emitted from a second group of light sources arranged about the optical opening.
However, Bandic teaches a tissue imaging method (abstract) including illuminating the tissue with unpolarized white light emitted from a second group of light sources (paragraph [0041] teaches both polarized and unpolarized light).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of illuminating the tissue with unpolarized white light emitted from a second group of light sources arranged about the optical opening in order to standard white light images of skin, as it would appear to the naked eye, as taught by Applicant Admitted Prior Art, Applicant’s paragraph [0003].
Regarding claim 15, Liang discloses wherein an orientation of polarization of the polarized white light and an orientation of polarization of the polarized light passing through the optical opening are mutually orthogonal (paragraph [0040]).
Regarding claim 16, Liang discloses comprising illuminating the tissue with light of a second band of wavelengths narrower than the band of wavelengths of visible light, said light emitted from a fourth group of light sources arranged about the optical opening (ref 12d, paragraph [0037]).
Regarding claim 17, Liang discloses wherein the filtering blocks light of the second band of wavelengths (paragraph [0039]).
Regarding claim 18, Liang discloses wherein one group of light sources is activated at a time (paragraph [0056]).
Regarding claim 19, Liang discloses wherein the first band of wavelengths is in a band of 380 nm through 420 nm (paragraph [0037]).
Regarding claim 20, Liang discloses wherein the filtering includes at least one of a long-pass, short-pass, band-pass, or notch optical filtering (paragraph [0039]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Wilzback (US 2020/0240918) teaches sample imaging including a filter to observe the object in true color (paragraph [0148]).
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 DOMINIC J BOLOGNA whose telephone number is (571)272-9282. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30am-3:30pm.
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, Kara E Geisel can be reached at (571) 272-2416. 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.
/DOMINIC J BOLOGNA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights