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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 06/09/026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 1 is rejected because the specification, as originally filed, fails to support the amended limitation of the platform having a pair of distinct and raised lateral fringes as now claimed. While Applicant asserts support is found in Paragraphs [0022]-[0023] and [0050] and 16 in Fig. 1 (REMARKS, Page 5), Examiner respectfully notes the cited portions fail to disclose “distinct” fringes. Moreover, one plain meaning for the term “distinct” is separate or discrete and the specification, as originally filed, fails to disclose separate or discrete fringes from the platform. The fringes depicted in Fig. 1 are connected to the platform and Claim 16 further defines the fringes as being “integral” with the platform. Thus, the specification, as originally filed, fails to support the amended claim limitations.
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 1-20 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 1 is rejected because it is unclear what “distinct” fringes are. The specification fails to disclose how “distinct” should be interpreted. The fringes are not “separate” or “discrete”. For the purpose of advancing prosecution, Examiner will assume distinct fringes mean distinguishable to the eye or notable.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 16-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Publication No. 2017/0188937 to Ike.
As for Claims 1-4 and 16-17, Ike discloses an infrared radial artery visualization device (Abstract) comprising an infrared (IR) light source (e.g. LED) configured to generate IR light in the 840-950 nm wavelength (Paragraph [0039]) an IR light sensor positioned opposite the source (e.g. CMOS or CCD camera; Paragraph [0042]) and a wrist support (e.g. 20 in Fig. 1 and corresponding descriptions) configured to hold a wrist between the IR LED source and IR light sensor so that an image can be captured (Paragraphs [0012], [0021] and [0064]). Ike’s wrist support includes a platform and integrated, distinct (e.g. distinguishable, notable), fringes on opposing sides of the platform (see annotated Fig. below) configured to assist positioning the wrist over the infrared sensor (e.g. 21 in Figs. 3A and 4B and corresponding descriptions). Examiner notes the shape of the side fringes urge the wrist centrally which is considered to read on “laterally guiding the wrist into alignment over the sensor” in its broadest reasonable interpretation.
PNG
media_image1.png
362
724
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 18, Ike discloses wherein the data captured by the IR sensor is subjected to image processing, image analysis and converted into image data to be displayed (Paragraph [0042]).
As for Claim 19, Ike discloses wherein the light source is part of an irradiation unit made of glass or a resin convex lens to transmit parallel light (Paragraph [0040]). Examiner notes that such an arrangement is considered to read on a diffusion lens in its broadest reasonable interpretation.
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.
Claim(s) 5-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ike in view of U.S. Publication No. 2011/0313294 to de Roode et al. “de Roode”.
As for Claim 5, Ike discloses an IR radial artery visualization device as described above but does not expressly disclose multiple LEDs.
de Roode teaches from within a similar field of endeavor with respect to artery imaging systems and methods wherein IR light may be produced with an array (e.g. 4 LEDs; Paragraph [0033]).
Accordingly, one skilled in the art would have been motivated to have modified the visualization system described by Ike to include a plurality of IR LEDs as described by de Roode in order to improve the artery visualization. Such a modification merely involves combining prior art elements according to known techniques to yield predictable results (MPEP 2143) and/or a mere duplication of parts (MPEP 2144.04).
As for Claim 6, de Roode explains that the light can be switched on intermittently to reduce heat buildup (Paragraph [0031]). In addition, Examiner notes the IR LED described emits light in the aforementioned wavelength and would include a circuit to modulate/adjust wavelength, intensity, etc. in its broadest reasonable interpretation.
With respect to Claim 7, de Roode’s intermittent illumination to reduce heat is considered to read on a temperature regulation system in its broadest reasonable interpretation.
Claim(s) 8-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ike and de Roode as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of U.S. Publication No. 2022/0132052 to Mojaver et al. “Mojaver”.
As for Claims 8-9, Ike and de Roode disclose an IR artery visualization system and method. While de Roode addresses overheating, the art of record does not expressly disclose vents or fans as claimed.
Mojaver teaches from within a similar field of endeavor with respect to medical imaging where a fan is provided to control air flow of device components according to a temperature sensor (Paragraph [0113]).
Accordingly, one skilled in the art would have been motivated to have modified Ike’s visualization system to include fans and temperature sensors to dissipate heat, when necessary, as described by Mojaver in order to protect system electronics from overheating.
Regarding Claim 10, Ike’s light source is provided within an opening (22 in Fig. 3A and corresponding descriptions).
As for Claims 11-12, as described above, Ike discloses wherein the light source is part of an irradiation unit made of glass or a resin convex lens to transmit parallel light (Paragraph [0040]). Examiner notes that such an arrangement is in the opening in its broadest reasonable interpretation.
As for Claims 13-14, Ike’s IR sensor is attached to a frame with a substantially arc shape (Fig. 7).
As for Claim 15, de Roode provides a hinged pivot for the camera to pivot (Paragraph [0034]). One skilled in the art would have been motivated to have modified Ike’s frame to include a pivot means for the IR sensor in order to adjust the focus of the sensor as necessary.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ike in view of U.S. Patent No. 7,549,961 to Hwang et al. “Hwang”.
As for Claim 20, Ike discloses an IR radial artery visualization device as described above but does not expressly disclose multiple displays.
Hwang teaches from within a similar field of endeavor with respect to medical imaging where image data may be displayed locally on device 100 and remotely for a remote physician for review (Column 2, Lines 55-65; Column 4, Lines 45-55).
Accordingly, one skilled in the art would have been motivated to have modified the visualization system and method described by Ike to send image data to multiple displays for remove expert review as described by Hwang in order to get a second opinion and/or advice when necessary. Such a modification merely involves combining prior art elements according to known techniques to yield predictable results (MPEP 2143).
Claim(s) 6-7 is/are alternatively rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ike and de Roode as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of U.S. Publication No. 2024/0073517 to Swamy.
As for Claim 6, Ike and de Roode disclose an IR visualization device above. de Roode explains that the light can be switched on intermittently to reduce heat buildup (Paragraph [0031]). In addition, Examiner notes the IR LED described emits light in the aforementioned wavelength and would include a circuit to modulate/adjust wavelength, intensity, etc. in its broadest reasonable interpretation.
Nonetheless, Swamy teaches wherein IR LEDs can include controls for modulating various parameters (e.g. pulse width, pulsing, intensity, cycle) to reduce power (Abstract, Paragraphs [0023], [0036] and [0039]-[0046]).
Accordingly, one skilled in the art would have been motivated to have adjusted any conventional IR light parameters as described by Swamy in order to optimize IR lighting as such a modification merely involves combining prior art elements according to known techniques to yield predictable results (MPEP 2143).
Claim(s) 8-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ike, de Roode and Swamy as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of U.S. Publication No. 2022/0132052 to Mojaver et al. “Mojaver”.
As for Claims 8-9, Ike, de Roode and Swamy disclose an IR artery visualization system and method. While de Roode addresses overheating, the art of record does not expressly disclose vents or fans as claimed.
Mojaver teaches from within a similar field of endeavor with respect to medical imaging where a fan is provided to control air flow of device components according to a temperature sensor (Paragraph [0113]).
Accordingly, one skilled in the art would have been motivated to have modified Ike’s visualization system to include fans and temperature sensors to dissipate heat, when necessary, as described by Mojaver in order to protect system electronics from overheating.
Regarding Claim 10, Ike’s light source is provided within an opening (22 in Fig. 3A and corresponding descriptions).
As for Claims 11-12, as described above, Ike discloses wherein the light source is part of an irradiation unit made of glass or a resin convex lens to transmit parallel light (Paragraph [0040]). Examiner notes that such an arrangement is in the opening in its broadest reasonable interpretation.
As for Claims 13-14, Ike’s IR sensor is attached to a frame with a substantially arc shape (Fig. 7).
As for Claim 15, de Roode provides a hinged pivot for the camera to pivot (Paragraph [0034]). One skilled in the art would have been motivated to have modified Ike’s frame to include a pivot means for the IR sensor in order to adjust the focus of the sensor as necessary.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/09/2026 have been fully considered and are moot in view of the updated ground of rejection necessitated by amendment. New 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and 112(b) rejections also necessitated by amendment. Examiner also notes Applicant’s arguments regarding Ike’s compression based compression plate (Page 6) are not commensurate with the scope of the claims as they do not preclude such an arrangement. Accordingly, the rejections have been maintained.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER L COOK whose telephone number is (571)270-7373. The examiner can normally be reached M-F approximately 8AM-5PM.
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, Anne Kozak can be reached at 571-270-0552. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER L COOK/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3797
Prosecution Insights