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 § 112
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 1-15 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.
Claims 1 and 11 recite “obtaining a spectral signature of an adjuvant on the region of interest…segment the adjuvant from the images by comparing the spectral signature to the spectral components of the images”. It is not clear how the comparison step is executed and the conditions for the comparison that would lead to the segmentation of the adjuvant. As per the specification, “the adjuvant can be segmented from the images by comparing the spectral signature of the adjuvant to the spectral components of the image's pixels. If the spectral components of a pixel (or group of pixels) in an image is similar enough to the corresponding spectral components in the spectral fingerprint of the adjuvant, then that pixel can be segmented as the adjuvant. For example, for the spectral components to be similar enough, all pixel spectral components must be within a threshold percentage difference (e.g., within 5%) to the adjuvant spectral components” [0164]. It is suggested claims 1 and 11 provide further clarity with respect to the segmentation of the adjuvant from the images based on the comparison of the spectral signature of the adjuvant to the spectral components of the image’s pixels in terms of the similarity threshold percentage difference to the adjuvant spectral components.
Claims 1-15 are directed to an “adjuvant” but does not provide any further limitations on the types of “adjuvants” being considered. It is not clear the use of the adjuvant and if the same segmentation procedure would be implemented to segment out adjuvants with respect to the skin, hair, teeth, etc. It is suggested claims provide further clarification on the range of adjuvants being considered for the image segmentation procedure [paragraphs 0116-0118 from the application specification].
The dependent claims do not provide further clarity and therefore stand rejected under 112(b).
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 2 are objected to because of the following informalities: line 1 of claims 1 and 2 include “….”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 4 and 5 include the terms “visual, VIS,…near-infrared, NIR” images. Since the two types of images being claimed are the visual and near-infrared images, it is suggested claims be modified to include either “visual” or “VIS” or “near-infrared” or “NIR” or include parentheses with respect to “VIS” and “NIR” next to the terms “visible”, and “near-infrared”, respectively.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 6, 7, 11, 14, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oe et al. (2012/0327207).
With respect to claims 1, 11, and 15, Oe et al. teach of a personal care system, method or device for capturing facial image with application of an adjuvant on the skin to visualize moisture change [0008, 0009]and computer program [0125] comprising an imaging device such as a near-infrared camera 24 [0079] or image acquiring unit 44 [0113] to obtain desired images of various portions of a region of interest such as the hand or arm or face or hair [0046]. Oe et al. teach of a processor or image analyzing unit 45 [0113]. Oe et al. teach of the processor or analyzing unit configured to obtain a spectra signature of an adjuvant such as external dermatological medication such as lotion and emulsion and analyze or process a skin or the like using the images before, immediately after, or after coating with the adjuvant and can evaluate the results of the comparisons [0113]. Oe et al. teach of identifying the spectral components in the images in a wavelength region of 800 nm to 2500 nm with images of the subject representing absorbing characteristics of water at around 1460 nm, oil at or around 2230 nm to 2400 nm (fig. 1) and based on the spectral changes and images obtained, moisture changes of the skin of the subject and changes of adhesion or adjuvant of cosmetics are analyzed [0046-0051, fig. 1]. Oe et al. therefore teach of segmenting out the adjuvant or the adhesives or lesion on the skin from the images by comparing the spectral signature to the spectral components of the images [0053, 0059].
With respect to claims 6, 7, and 14, Oe et al. teach of the imaging device or camera 24 configured to obtain visual, VIS, images and near-infrared, NIR, images [0079] wherein the processor is configured to segment the adjuvant or skin additive such as lotion from the VIS images and NIR images using the spectral signature or wavelengths or where the image analysis device 12 receives images in the predetermined plural wavelength regions of the near-infrared region and analyzes the skin for water and oil and skin coatings such as lotion [0059]. Oe et al. therefore teach of segmenting out the lotion or adjuvant from the images using the spectral signature of the differences in the wavelengths [0161]. Oe et al. also teach of real-time and continuous capture of the images [0097] and therefore the spectral signature or the wavelength spectra would also be updated continuously over time with respect to the adjuvant or additions such as lotions to the skin surface.
Oe et al. do not teach of all the claimed elements in a single embodiment. It would have therefore been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art combine the elements from the various embodiments to enable analysis of a skin using an image of the near-infrared region and analyze and compare regions of the skin or hair before and after application of an adjuvant or adhesion of a cosmetic and analyze moisture changes of the skin as a result of the additions [0013].
Claim(s) 2-4, 12, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oe et al. in view of Shi et al. (2022/0108430). Oe et al. teach of the imaging device or camera 24 configured to obtain visual, VIS, images and near-infrared, NIR, images [0079] wherein the processor is configured to segment the adjuvant or skin additive such as lotion from the VIS images and NIR images using the spectral signature or wavelengths or where the image analysis device 12 receives images in the predetermined plural wavelength regions of the near-infrared region and analyzes the skin for water and oil and skin coatings such as lotion [0059]. Oe et al. therefore teach of segmenting out the lotion or adjuvant from the images using the spectral signature of the differences in the wavelengths [0161]. Oe et al. however do not explicitly teach of reconstructing the anatomical structure using the segmented images . Oe et al. also do not teach of performing color clustering or generating hyperspectral cube. In a similar field of endeavor Shi et al. teach of a hyperspectral imaging system that may be used for skin analysis [0251, 0252] including generating a hyperspectral cube from the images [0358, 0442]. Shi et al. teach of performing color clustering on the images [0154, 0155, 0161, 0283, 0284]. Shi et al. teach of reconstructing images [0122, 0130] that may be combined with the Oe reference to effectively reconstruct the anatomical structure using the segmented VIR and NIR images. It would have therefore been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to improve diagnostics and enhance a patient’s clinical outcome and evolution of the patient’s health [Shi, abstract].
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oe et al. in view of Shi et al. and further in view of Tsumatori (2017/0258330). Oe et al. teach of the imaging device or camera 24 configured to obtain visual, VIS, images and near-infrared, NIR, images [0079] wherein the processor is configured to segment the adjuvant or skin additive such as lotion from the VIS images and NIR images using the spectral signature or wavelengths or where the image analysis device 12 receives images in the predetermined plural wavelength regions of the near-infrared region and analyzes the skin for water and oil and skin coatings such as lotion [0059]. Oe et al. therefore teach of segmenting out the lotion or adjuvant from the images using the spectral signature of the differences in the wavelengths [0161]. Oe et al. however do not explicitly teach of reconstructing the anatomical structure using the segmented images . Oe et al. also do not teach of performing color clustering or generating hyperspectral cube. In a similar field of endeavor Shi et al. teach of a hyperspectral imaging system that may be used for skin analysis [0251, 0252] including generating a hyperspectral cube from the images [0358, 0442]. Shi et al. teach of performing color clustering on the images [0154, 0155, 0161, 0283, 0284]. Shi et al. teach of reconstructing images [0122, 0130] that may be combined with the Oe reference to effectively reconstruct the anatomical structure using the segmented VIR and NIR images. It would have therefore been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to improve diagnostics and enhance a patient’s clinical outcome and evolution of the patient’s health [Shi, abstract].
Oe et al. and Shi et al. do not explicitly teach of fusing VIS images to corresponding NIR images. In a similar field of endeavor Tsumatori teaches of fusing visible image of a surface of body of the patient with near-infrared image [fig. 4, 5, 0032, 0036, 0038, 0039]. The combination of the Oe and Shi references may be used to segment the adjuvant (lotion as taught by the Oe reference) using spectral signature or wavelength spectra and reconstructing the anatomical or physiological structure of the region of interest (as taught by the Shi reference) using the combined visible and near-infrared images (as taught by the Tsumatori reference). It would have therefore been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the teaching by Tsumatori to modify the prior references to improve the visibility of near-infrared image [Tsumatori, 0042] and improve visibility of the fluorescent image when the visible image and the fluorescent image of the subject are combined to generate a fused image [Tsumatori, 0012].
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oe et al. in view of Banerjee et al. (2024/0016393). Oe et al. do not teach of an oral care device. In a related field of endeavor Banerjee et al. teach of a system and method for detecting blood in oral cavity during toothbrushing by looking the spectral signature during toothbrushing [0091, 0094] and measure hemoglobin using only a few wavelengths of light in both visible and infrared regions during tooth brushing [0093]. Banerjee et al. teach of the oral care device to comprise a handle 111 and/or cleaning unit, wherein the region of interest is the oral cavity [0039, 0040]. It would have therefore been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the teaching by Banerjee et al. to modify Oe et al. to provide a oral care device such as a toothbrush to monitor changes, in the oral cavity as a result of brushing [Banerjee, 0002, 0003].
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oe et al. in view of Banerjee et al. and further in view of Sharma et al. (2019/0117078). Banerjee et al. teach of the toothbrush 100 to comprise a toothbrush head section 122 and bristles 123 but do not explicitly teach of the imaging device to obtain images in the direction of the bristles. In a similar field of endeavor Sharma et al. teach of an personal care system, comprising an imaging device 5100 configured to obtain images of a region of interest 5109 of an object [0172]. Sharma et al. teach of optical system and method for examination of teeth including hyper-spectral imaging and analyzing OCT images and generate “heat maps” which can be displayed and provide information on the tooth condition [0206]. It would have therefore been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the teaching by Sharma et al. to modify Oe et al. and Banerjee et al. to detect various abnormalities with respect to the tooth surface [Sharma, 0006, 0008] and under broadest reasonable interpretation, provide information on the concentration of adjuvants such as toothbrush on the tooth surface (as a result of the Banerjee reference).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BAISAKHI ROY whose telephone number is (571)272-7139. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7-3 EST.
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, Christopher Koharski can be reached at 571-272-7230. 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.
BR
/BAISAKHI ROY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3797