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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In paragraph 00023, line 2, “electrode array 15” should read “electrode array 10”
In paragraph 00028, line 1, “implant lead 23” should read “implant lead connector 23”
In paragraph 00028, line 5, “implant lead 18” should read “implant lead connection 18”
In paragraph 00030, line 3, “lead 18” should read “lead 14”
Appropriate correction is required.
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 subject matter of claim 3, specifically “the step of ascribing confidence scores” is not disclosed within the specification. It is recommended that the applicant either provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter by amending the specification, or delete said claim.
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.
Claim 3 is 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 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 inventors, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. “Ascribing confidence scores” is a parameter that is not well-known to one of ordinary skill in the art, and can be calculated in a variety of ways with invention-specific algorithms. Furthermore, the specification does not disclose how confidence scores for the one or more detected objects are calculated, or how the confidence scores are being used in said invention. For examination purposes, “ascribing confidence scores” is being interpreted broadly as “ascribing scores”.
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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the location of detected objects" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the stimulation device" in lines 7-8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the intensity of output" in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the detected state" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1, 3, 7, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Greenberg et al. (WIPO Pub. No. 2008/109771).
Regarding claim 1, Greenberg teaches a method of operating (Paragraph 0022, line 1) a visual sensory substitution device (Paragraph 0022, line 2), the method comprising the steps of: receiving image data and other data (Paragraph 0009, lines 1-2 and paragraph 0036, lines 2-3) indicative of an externally generated image representative of environmental data (Paragraph 0023, lines 8-10); detecting one or more predetermined objects from the image data (Paragraph 0024, lines 1-2); processing the post-object detected image data (Paragraph 0036, lines 1-2); matching the location of detected objects to corresponding locations of the stimulation device (Paragraph 0030, lines 1-5); scaling the intensity of output to the corresponding locations of the stimulation device (Fig. 2, Paragraph 0008, lines 1-16); providing output data for use by the stimulation device representative of the location of the detected objects (Paragraph 0041, lines 1-3).
Regarding claim 3, Greenberg teaches a method (Paragraph 0022, line 1) according to claim 1 including the step of ascribing confidence scores (Paragraph 0033, lines 10-17) to the one or more detected objects (Paragraph 0024, lines 1-2).
Regarding claim 7, Greenberg teaches a method (Paragraph 0022, line 1) according to claim 1 wherein the step of scaling the intensity of the output data (Fig. 2, Paragraph 0008, lines 1-16) is dependent on detected object location (Paragraph 0023, lines 3-4) and environmental data (Paragraph 0023, lines 4-5 and 9-10).
Regarding claim 14, Greenberg teaches a method (Paragraph 0022, line 1) according to claim 1 wherein the sensory substitution device (Paragraph 0022, line 2) is a retinal implant (Paragraph 0010, line 2 and paragraph 0022, line 10) having an array of stimulating electrodes (Paragraph 0031, line 5 and paragraph 0033, lines 5-6).
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.
Claims 2, 4-6, 8-13, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Greenberg et al. (WIPO Pub. No. 2008/109771) in view of Habili et al. (WIPO Pub. No. 2021/108844).
Regarding claim 2, Greenberg teaches a method (Paragraph 0022, line 1) according to claim 1 wherein the image data (Paragraph 0036, lines 2-3) includes color data (Paragraph 0008, line 1), contrast data (Paragraph 0025, lines 5-7) and intensity data (Paragraph 0008, line 1). Greenberg does not teach that the image data includes depth data. Habili, however, teaches a method for creating artificial vision with an implantable visual stimulation device that includes receiving image data (Paragraph 0009, line 3) with depth values (Paragraph 0009, lines 3-4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Greenberg to incorporate the teachings of Habili to include that the received image data includes depth data. Doing so would ensure that depth data pertaining to detected objects can also be used to properly scale the intensity of the output data, as recognized by Habili.
Regarding claim 4, Greenberg teaches a method (Paragraph 0022, line 1) according to claim 1 wherein processing the post-object detected data includes the step of identifying and removing duplicate detected objects (Paragraph 0039, lines 2-5). Although Greenberg does not explicitly teach this step, Greenberg does teach “filtering the maps to suppress areas of similar energy” (Paragraph 0039). It would be well known to a person of ordinary skill in the art that duplicate detected objects would comprise areas of similar energy, and therefore this filtering would produce the same effect of identifying and removing duplicate detected objects.
Greenberg does not teach a method step that includes filtering the data as a function of distance. Habili, however, teaches a method for creating artificial vision with an implantable visual stimulation device that includes filtering the data (Paragraph 0038, lines 3-7) as a function of distance (Paragraph 0023, lines 1-2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Greenberg to incorporate the teachings of Habili to include a method that filters the data as a function of distance. Doing so would ensure that distance measurements pertaining to detected objects can be used to filter and properly scale the intensity of the output data, as recognized by Habili.
Regarding claim 5, Greenberg teaches a method (Paragraph 0022, line 1) according to claim 4 wherein processing the post-object detected data (Paragraph 0036, lines 1-2) includes removing a detected object (Paragraph 0039, lines 2-5) in response to the detected object being in a defined state. Although Greenberg does not explicitly state that a detected object is removed in response to the detected object being in a defined state, it would be inherently understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art that any object being detected from the image data would be in a defined state.
Regarding claim 6, Greenberg teaches a method (Paragraph 0022, line 1) according to claim 5 wherein the detected object (Paragraph 0024, lines 1-2) is a chair (Paragraph 0045, line 2), or any other type of object that can be used as a seat (Paragraph 0045, lines 1-2), and that the detected state includes being occupied or unoccupied, or obstructed. Although Greenberg does not explicitly disclose that the detected object is any other type of object that can be used as a seat, Greenberg does teach that “a table of stored patterns (e.g. a chair) is stored in the visual prosthesis” (Paragraph 0045). It would be inherently understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art that the object being detected could be any type of object, including one that can be used as a seat. Also, it would be inherently understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art that a chair or object that can be used as a seat that is detected from the received image data would be in a detected state such as occupied, unoccupied, or obstructed.
Regarding claim 8, Greenberg teaches a method (Paragraph 0022, line 1) according to claim 7 wherein the environmental data (Paragraph 0023, lines 4-5 and lines 9-10) includes contrast (Paragraph 0025, lines 5-7). Greenberg does not teach that the environmental data includes depth or distance. Habili, however, teaches a method for creating artificial vision with an implantable visual stimulation device that includes receiving environmental data (Paragraph 0009, line 3) with depth values (Paragraph 0009, lines 3-4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Greenberg to incorporate the teachings of Habili to include that the environmental data includes depth or distance. Doing so would ensure that depth or distance pertaining to detected objects from the environmental data can be used to properly scale the intensity of the output data, as recognized by Habili.
Regarding claim 9, Greenberg teaches a method (Paragraph 0022, line 1) according to claim 1 further including the steps of: receiving image data and other data (Paragraph 0009, lines 1-2 and paragraph 0036, lines 2-3) indicative of an externally generated image representative of environmental data (Paragraph 0023, lines 8-10); down sampling the pre-processed image (Paragraph 0036, lines 2-4) to create a corresponding intensity scaling map of the intensity of corresponding to the location stimulation device (Paragraph 0031, lines 3-5); and providing output data for use by the stimulation device (Paragraph 0041, lines 1-3).
Greenberg does not teach method steps of depth pre-processing the received image; extracting predetermined features from the pre-processed image; and scaling the intensity of the pre-processed image using the intensity scaling map. Habili, however, teaches a method for creating artificial vision with an implantable visual stimulation device that includes steps of receiving image data (Paragraph 0009, line 3), depth pre-processing the received image (Paragraph 0062, lines 2-5), extracting predetermined features from the pre-processed image (Paragraph 0039, lines 1-4); and scaling the intensity of the pre-processed image using the intensity scaling map (Paragraph 0129, lines 1-5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Greenberg to incorporate the teachings of Habili to include method steps of depth pre-processing the received image; extracting predetermined features from the pre-processed image; and scaling the intensity of the pre-processed image using the intensity scaling map. Doing so would ensure that the image data received is cleaned to reduce artifacts, and then predetermined features can be
extracted to properly scale the intensity of the output data, as recognized by Habili.
Regarding claim 10, Greenberg teaches a method (Paragraph 0022, line 1) according to claim 9 wherein the image environmental data (Paragraph 0023, lines 8-10) includes colour data (Paragraph 0008, line 1), contrast data (Paragraph 0025, lines 5-7) and intensity data (Paragraph 0008, line 1). Greenberg does not teach that the image data includes depth data. Habili, however, teaches a method for creating artificial vision with an implantable visual stimulation device that includes receiving image data (Paragraph 0009, line 3) with depth values (Paragraph 0009, lines 3-4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Greenberg to incorporate the teachings of Habili to include that the received image data includes depth data. Doing so would ensure that depth data pertaining to detected objects can also be used to properly scale the intensity of the output data, as recognized by Habili.
Regarding claim 11, Greenberg teaches a method (Paragraph 0022, line 1) according to claim 9 that includes processing the received image data by: determining an orientation of the image data (Paragraph 0030, lines 1-2) and removing any predetermined undesirable data (Paragraph 0039, lines 2-5); and orientation corrections (Paragraph 0037, lines 7-8). Greenberg does not teach performing depth pre-processing that includes one or more of: temporally or spatially smoothing the received image data to remove or minimize artefacts; hole filling; and thresholding.
Habili, however, teaches a method for creating artificial vision with an implantable visual stimulation device that performs depth pre-processing (Paragraph 0062, lines 2-5) by temporally or spatially smoothing (Paragraph 0062, lines 9-10) the received image data (Paragraph 0009, line 3) to remove or minimize artefacts (Paragraph 0062, line 10); hole filling (Paragraph 0063, lines 1-3); and thresholding (Paragraph 0062, lines 3-7). Although Habili does not explicitly disclose that orientation correction can also be used for performing depth pre-processing, these techniques for depth pre-processing would be well known by a person of ordinary skill in the art.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Greenberg to incorporate the teachings of Habili to include that depth pre-processing can be performed by temporally or spatially smoothing image data to minimize artifacts and by thresholding. Doing so would improve image quality for the patient, as recognized by Habili.
Regarding claim 12, Greenberg teaches a method (Paragraph 0022, line 1) according to claim 9 that extracts predetermined features (Paragraph 0024, lines 1-2). Greenberg does not teach that the extracted predetermined features include salient objects, detected planes, shorelines, and distance. Habili, however, teaches a method for creating artificial vision with an implantable visual stimulation device that extracts predetermined features including salient objects (Paragraph 0039, line 2), detected planes (Paragraph 0039, line 3), shorelines (Paragraph 0039, lines 3-4) and distance (Paragraph 0047, lines 8-10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Greenberg to incorporate the teachings of Habili to include that the extracted predetermined features include salient objects, detected planes, shorelines, and distance. Doing so would ensure that a variety of features from the received image data can be extracted to properly scale the intensity of the output data, as recognized by Habili.
Regarding claim 13, Greenberg teaches a method (Paragraph 0022, line 1) according to claim 9 including scaling the intensity (Fig. 2, Paragraph 0008, lines 1-16) as a function of object or feature location and associated environmental data (Paragraph 0023, lines 3-7 and paragraph 0039, lines 1-10).
Regarding claim 15, Greenberg teaches a method (Paragraph 0022, line 1) according to claim 1 wherein the sensory substitution device (Paragraph 0022, line 2) could activate tactile cues in order to alert the patient to the presence of salient regions (Paragraph 0042, lines 7-8). Although Greenberg does not teach that the sensory substitution device could include a tactile sensor having a plurality of spaced apart tactors, where the tactile sensor is configured to be disposed contiguous with or closely adjacent skin of a user, it would be well understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art that tactile cues can be provided to a patient with a tactile sensor close to or touching the skin, and having a plurality of spaced apart tactors. Therefore, it would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to try using a tactile sensor with a plurality of tactors to provide tactile cues to alert the patient to the presence of salient regions, as recognized by Greenberg.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: WIPO Pub. No. 2024/100154, WIPO Pub. No. 2023/001546, U.S. PGPub No. 2023/0045213, U.S. PGPub No. 2018/0125716, and U.S. PGPub No. 2012/0123501.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Heidi Hilsmier whose telephone number is (571)272-2984. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Fridays from 7:30 AM - 4:30 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, Carl Layno can be reached at 571-272-4949. 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.
/H.A.H./Patent Examiner , Art Unit 3796
/CARL H LAYNO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3796