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 .
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 fringes 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 “assist in positioning” 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 build up (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 provide 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 provide 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 01/07/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Updated grounds of rejection necessitated by amendment. Regarding Claim 1, Applicant argues “…Ike relies on a ‘gutter shape’ (Para. [0048]) combined with the protrusion for placement; it does not disclose a platform with distinct fringes serving as the primary positioning mechanism to align the wrist over a sensor without such a protrusion” (REMARKS, Pages 6-7). Examiner respectfully notes Applicant’s arguments are not commensurate with the scope of the claim. For example, the claim fails to disclose “distinct” fringes. If it did, it would appear to contradict amended Claim 16 which states the fringes are an integral part of the platform. “Fringe” is a broad term and Ike’s gutter shaped platform depicted above, would read on the claimed limitations in its broadest reasonable interpretation.
Conclusion
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 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