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 .
Status of Claims
This communication is in response to the Application Filed on
Claims 1-40 are pending in this application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 10/03/2024, 10/09/2024, 11/04/2025, and 05/20/2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Applicant has cited a [large, extreme, excessive] number of references on the IDS without indicating any significance or providing any explanation of relevance of any of the cited references.
It is desirable to avoid the submission of long lists of documents if it can be avoided. Eliminate clearly irrelevant and marginally pertinent cumulative information. If a long list is submitted, highlight those documents which have been specifically brought to applicant’s attention and/or are known to be of most significance. See Penn Yan Boats, Inc. v. Sea Lark Boats, Inc. 359 F. Supp. 948, 175 USPQ 260 (S.D. Fla. 1972), aff’d, 479 F.2d 1338, 178 USPQ 577 (5th Cir. 1973), cert. denied, 414 U.S 874 (1974). But. cf. Molins PLC v. Textron Inc., 48 F.3d 1172, 33 USPQ2d 1823 (Fed. Cir. 1995). Please see MPEP 2004.13.
Therefore, based on the current IDS submission, the examiner has considered the cited references searchable in USPTO databases, other patent office databases, and/or commercial patent and non-patent literature databases in the same manner the examiner has searched all prior art as indicated in the search history of record. Cited references not searchable in these databases will be considered independently.
Claim Objections
Claims 17 and 40 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 17, please remove the term “any” in line 1.
In claim 39, please change the second instance of “a wound debridement procedure” to “the wound debridement procedure” in line 2.
Regarding claim 40:
Please change “of improving” to “for improving” in line 1.
Delete “such as” in line 3 and “e.g., flattening the countour or edge of the wound” in lines 4-5.
Modify “a debridement procedure” to “the wound debridement procedure” in line 4. It is unclear if another type of debridement procedure is being introduced. For purposes of examination, the Examiner will consider it to be a wound debridement procedure.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 17, 34, and 39 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.
Regarding claim 17, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 17 recites “The imaging system of any Claim 1, wherein the tissue region includes at least a portion of a wound, an uneven tissue surface, hyperpigmentation, a lesion, such as a cancerous lesion including, but not limited to, a squamous cell carcinoma, basal cell carcinoma, Merkel cell carcinoma, melanoma, or an actinic keratosis.”
For purposes of examination, the Examiner will consider the following claim language: “The imaging system of any Claim 1, wherein the tissue region includes at least a portion of a wound, an uneven tissue surface, hyperpigmentation, a lesion.”
Regarding claim 34, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 34 recites “The imaging system of Claim 32, wherein the confidence value comprises an uncertainty value expressed in a unit of dimension, such as length.”
For purposes of examination, the Examiner will consider the following claim language: “The imaging system of Claim 32, wherein the confidence value comprises an uncertainty value expressed in a unit of dimension.”
Regarding claim 39, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 39 recites “Use of the imaging system of Claim 1 in a wound debridement procedure, optionally before, during or after a wound debridement procedure such as flattening the countour or edge of a wound.”
For purposes of examination, the Examiner will consider the following claim language: “Use of the imaging system of Claim 1 in a wound debridement procedure, optionally before, during or after a wound debridement procedure.”
Claim 39 is not proper because it is unclear what is being claimed in terms of a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. However, the claim refers back to claim 1 which is a system claim. Perhaps claim 39 is also a system claim.
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 non-obviousness.
Claims 1, 2, 10-15, 17, 18, 25-28, 30, 31, 39, and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McCall et al. (US20200193580 A1, hereinafter, “McCall”) in view of DeBernardis et al. (US20160058288 A1, hereinafter, “DeBernardis”).
Regarding claim 1, McCall discloses an imaging system (See McCall, ¶ [0037] FIG. 12 depicts a schematic block diagram of an imaging system) comprising:
a plurality of image sensors (See McCall, ¶ [0049] digital outputs (e.g., image sensors or the like); ¶ [0054] one or more sensor elements) configured to receive light reflected by a tissue region (See McCall, ¶ [0091] provide light to four cameras 630A-630D (including image sensors); ¶ [0047] acquire images from a wide area of tissue) in at least a first predetermined waveband (See McCall, ¶ [0076] pass waveband λc (the “common waveband”). Examiner considers the common waveband to be the first predetermine waveband);
a memory storing computer-executable instructions (See McCall, ¶ [0102] a memory 1130); and one or more processors configured by the computer-executable instructions to at least (See McCall, ¶ [0102] Processor 1120; ¶ [0103] instructions that configure the processor 1120):
cause each of the at least two image sensors (See McCall, ¶ [0069] a first image sensor region 225A (photodiodes PD1-PD3) and a second image sensor region 225B (photodiodes PD4-PD6)) to capture an image of the tissue region (See McCall, ¶ [0047] acquire images from a wide area of tissue; ¶ [0070] images captured by the first and second sensor regions 225A, 225B);
identify corresponding sets of pixels in the captured images (See McCall, ¶ [0070] two corresponding points in the left and right (or upper and lower) images of a stereoscopic pair, such that the same physical point in the object space can appear in different locations in each image), each set comprising a pixel of a first image (See McCall, ¶ [0070] images captured by the first and second sensor regions 225A, 225B. Examiner considers the first image to be an image with pixels captured by the first sensor regions) captured by a first image sensor (See McCall, ¶ [0069] a first image sensor region 225A (photodiodes PD1-PD3)) of the plurality of image sensors and a pixel of a second image (See McCall, ¶ [0070] images captured by the first and second sensor regions 225A, 225B. Examiner considers the second image to be an imagewith pixels captured by the second sensor regions) captured by a second image sensor (See McCall, ¶ [0069] a second image sensor region 225B (photodiodes PD4-PD6)) of the plurality of image sensors;
determine pixel disparities for the pixels of the corresponding sets of pixels, preferably groups of pixel disparities or individual pixel disparities (See McCall, ¶ [0097] calculate disparity point by point);
determine, based at least in part on the pixel disparities (See McCall, ¶ [0097] calculate disparity point by point) and a baseline distance between the first and second image sensors (See McCall, ¶ [0070] The optical axes 230A, 230B are separated by a distance D, which can result in disparity between the images captured by the first and second sensor regions 225A, 225B), distance values associated with the individual corresponding sets of pixels (See McCall, ¶ [0097] calculate disparity point by point); and
[generate a three-dimensional (3D) model of the tissue region based at least in part on the distance values.]
McCall fails to disclose generate a three-dimensional (3D) model of the tissue region based at least in part on the distance values.
DeBernardis teaches generate a three-dimensional (3D) model of the tissue region based at least in part on the distance values (See DeBernardis, ¶ [0034] the binary images are transformed into a 3D point cloud using only information from the marked pixels, the pixel spacing (20 micron spacing), and the estimated optical depth distance as the z-coordinates).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify McCall’s reference to generate a three-dimensional (3D) model of the tissue region based at least in part on the distance values based on the method of DeBernardis’s reference. The suggestion/motivation would have been to provide quantitative three-dimensional maps of tissue to guide treatment as suggested by DeBernardis at ¶ [0022].
Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above by known method with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine DeBernardis with McCall to obtain the invention as specified in claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of McCall and DeBernardis teaches the imaging system of Claim 1, wherein the 3D model of the tissue region comprises at least one of a 3D point cloud, a 3D textured mesh, a 3D parametric surface, or a 3D voxel grid (See DeBernardis, ¶ [0034] the binary images are transformed into a 3D point cloud using only information from the marked pixels, the pixel spacing (20 micron spacing), and the estimated optical depth distance as the z-coordinates).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify McCall’s reference wherein the 3D model of the tissue region comprises at least one of a 3D point cloud, a 3D textured mesh, a 3D parametric surface, or a 3D voxel grid based on the method of DeBernardis’s reference. The suggestion/motivation would have been to provide quantitative three-dimensional maps of tissue to guide treatment as suggested by DeBernardis at ¶ [0022].
Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above by known method with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine DeBernardis with McCall to obtain the invention as specified in claim 2.
Regarding claim 10, the combination of McCall and DeBernardis teaches the imaging system of Claim 1, wherein the instructions further configure the one or more processors to segment the captured images prior to identifying the corresponding sets of pixels (See DeBernardis, ¶ [0043] The segmentation algorithm isolates the pixels in the images which belong to the lesion from those that do not (i.e., all background pixels).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify McCall’s reference wherein the instructions further configure the one or more processors to segment the captured images prior to identifying the corresponding sets of pixels based on the method of DeBernardis’s reference. The suggestion/motivation would have been to properly capture the shape of the lesion in 3D as suggested by DeBernardis at ¶ [0034].
Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above by known method with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine DeBernardis with McCall to obtain the invention as specified in claim 10.
Regarding claim 11, the combination of McCall and DeBernardis teaches the imaging system of Claim 10, wherein the segmenting comprises identifying at least background pixels and tissue region pixels (See DeBernardis, ¶ [0043] The segmentation algorithm isolates the pixels in the images which belong to the lesion from those that do not (i.e., all background pixels).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify McCall’s reference wherein the segmenting comprises identifying at least background pixels and tissue region pixel based on the method of DeBernardis’s reference. The suggestion/motivation would have been to properly capture the shape of the lesion in 3D as suggested by DeBernardis at ¶ [0034].
Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above by known method with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine DeBernardis with McCall to obtain the invention as specified in claim 11.
Regarding claim 12, the combination of McCall and DeBernardis teaches the imaging system of Claim 11, wherein the background pixels are excluded from the identification of corresponding sets of pixels (See DeBernardis, ¶ [0102] Another solution is to do pixel filtration on the fragment shader. The fragment shader could be customized to skip the pixels not part of the foreground).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify McCall’s reference wherein the background pixels are excluded from the identification of corresponding sets of pixels based on the method of DeBernardis’s reference. The suggestion/motivation would have been to aid in the surgeon's excision quality of removed tissue as suggested by DeBernardis at ¶ [0013].
Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above by known method with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine DeBernardis with McCall to obtain the invention as specified in claim 12.
Regarding claim 13, the combination of McCall and DeBernardis teaches the imaging system of Claim 1, further comprising at least one light source configured to illuminate the tissue region with light of at least the first predetermined waveband (See McCall, ¶ [0076] In implementations with three or more light paths, each multi-bandpass filter can pass this common waveband. Examiner considers the common waveband to be the first predetermined waveband).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of McCall and DeBernardis teaches the imaging system of Claims 1, wherein each image sensor of the plurality of image sensors is configured to image the tissue region in at least the first predetermined waveband (See McCall, ¶ [0047] acquire images from a wide area of tissue; ¶ [0076] pass waveband λc (the “common waveband”)) and a second waveband different from the second waveband of at least one other image sensor of the plurality of image sensors (See McCall, ¶ [0096] eight unique channels or wavebands. Examiner considers unique wavebands to be “different from the second waveband”).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of McCall and DeBernardis teaches the imaging system of Claim 14, wherein the instructions further configure the one or more processors to obtain multispectral image data associated with the tissue region based on the captured images (See McCall, ¶ [0038] FIG. 13 is a flowchart of an example process for capturing image data using the multispectral multi-aperture imaging systems of FIGS. 3A-10B).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of McCall and DeBernardis teaches the imaging system of any Claim 1, wherein the tissue region includes at least a portion of a wound, an uneven tissue surface, hyperpigmentation, a lesion, such as a cancerous lesion including, but not limited to, a squamous cell carcinoma, basal cell carcinoma, Merkel cell carcinoma, melanoma, or an actinic keratosis (See McCall, ¶ [0125] the object 1511 includes tissue of a patient that has a wound. A wound can comprise a burn, a diabetic ulcer (e.g., a diabetic foot ulcer), a non-diabetic ulcer (e.g., pressure ulcers or slow-healing wounds), a chronic ulcer, a post-surgical incision, an amputation site (before or after the amputation procedure)).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of McCall and DeBernardis teaches the imaging system of Claim 17, wherein the wound comprises at least one of a burn, a surgical wound, a pressure ulcer, or a diabetic foot ulcer (See McCall, ¶ [0125] the object 1511 includes tissue of a patient that has a wound. A wound can comprise a burn, a diabetic ulcer (e.g., a diabetic foot ulcer), a non-diabetic ulcer (e.g., pressure ulcers or slow-healing wounds), a chronic ulcer, a post-surgical incision, an amputation site (before or after the amputation procedure)).
Regarding claim 25, the combination of McCall and DeBernardis teaches the imaging system of Claim 1, wherein the instructions further configure the one or more processors to perform image rectification or transformation prior to identifying the corresponding sets of pixels (See DeBernardis, ¶ [0064] Rotation and other image manipulation is enabled by using programming techniques well known in the art for manipulating computer-rendered 3D images).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify McCall’s reference wherein the instructions further configure the one or more processors to perform image rectification or transformation prior to identifying the corresponding sets of pixels based on the method of DeBernardis’s reference. The suggestion/motivation would have been to enhance morphological patterns characteristic of melanoma, such as the statistical properties of the pigment network, image texture or homogeneity, and the lesion reflectance, in order to provide information about lesion morphology at different depths as suggested by DeBernardis in the Abstract.
Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above by known method with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine DeBernardis with McCall to obtain the invention as specified in claim 25.
Regarding claim 26, the combination of McCall and DeBernardis teaches the imaging system of Claim 25, wherein the image rectification or transformation comprises correcting at least one of scale, distortion, skew, perspective, or rotation of the captured images (See DeBernardis, ¶ [0064] Rotation and other image manipulation is enabled by using programming techniques well known in the art for manipulating computer-rendered 3D images).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify McCall’s reference wherein the image rectification or transformation comprises correcting at least one of scale, distortion, skew, perspective, or rotation of the captured images based on the method of DeBernardis’s reference. The suggestion/motivation would have been to enhance morphological patterns characteristic of melanoma, such as the statistical properties of the pigment network, image texture or homogeneity, and the lesion reflectance, in order to provide information about lesion morphology at different depths as suggested by DeBernardis in the Abstract.
Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above by known method with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine DeBernardis with McCall to obtain the invention as specified in claim 26.
Regarding claim 27, the combination of McCall and DeBernardis teaches the imaging system of Claim 1, wherein the instructions further configure the one or more processors to output a visual representation of the tissue region based on the 3D model of the tissue region (See McCall, ¶ [0120] build a 3D map of the depth of the wound).
Regarding claim 28, the combination of McCall and DeBernardis teaches the imaging system of Claim 27, wherein the visual representation comprises two-dimensional image data from at least one of the captured images fitted to the 3D model (See DeBernardis, ¶ [0065] 3D image was created by using 2D images taken at successive layers).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify McCall’s reference wherein the visual representation comprises two-dimensional image data from at least one of the captured images fitted to the 3D model based on the method of DeBernardis’s reference. The suggestion/motivation would have been to create a 3D image by using 2D images taken at successive layers as suggested by DeBernardis at ¶ [0035].
Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above by known method with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine DeBernardis with McCall to obtain the invention as specified in claim 28.
Regarding claim 30, the combination of McCall and DeBernardis teaches the imaging system of Claim 27, wherein the visual representation comprises a two-dimensional cross-sectional profile of at least a portion of the tissue region (See DeBernardis, ¶ [0064] The 3D images can also be “sliced” to show interior portions from left to right, from right to left, and from top to bottom; ¶ [0066] Image 8 shows the same lesion with the top “sliced” off to show the interior).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify McCall’s reference wherein the visual representation comprises a two-dimensional cross-sectional profile of at least a portion of the tissue region based on the method of DeBernardis’s reference. The suggestion/motivation would have been to properly capture the shape of the lesion in 3D as suggested by DeBernardis at ¶ [0034].
Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above by known method with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine DeBernardis with McCall to obtain the invention as specified in claim 30.
Regarding claim 31, the combination of McCall and DeBernardis teaches the imaging system of Claim 1, wherein the plurality of image sensors include at least three image sensors and wherein each set further comprises a pixel of a third image captured by a third image sensor of the plurality of image sensors (See McCall, ¶ [0069] the optical design principles illustrated by FIG. 3A can be extended to three or more apertures and corresponding light paths and sensor regions, depending upon the implementation. Examiner considers the expansion to three or more sensor regions as there being a third image sensor and third image).
Regarding claim 39, the combination of McCall and DeBernardis teach use of the imaging system of Claim 1 in a wound debridement procedure, optionally before, during or after a wound debridement procedure (See McCall, ¶ [[0133] The devices described herein may also be used to monitor healthy tissue, facilitate and improve wound treatment procedures, for example allowing for a faster and more refined approach for determining the margin for debridement, and evaluate the progress of recovery from a wound or disease, especially after a treatment has been applied).
Regarding claim 40, the combination of McCall and DeBernardis teach a method of improving the healing of a wound comprising generating a 3D model of the wound using an imaging system of Claim 1 and debriding the wound with reference to the 3D model generated by the imaging system by referring to the 3D model of the wound prior to, during, or after a debridement procedure (See McCall, ¶ [[0133] The devices described herein may also be used to monitor healthy tissue, facilitate and improve wound treatment procedures, for example allowing for a faster and more refined approach for determining the margin for debridement, and evaluate the progress of recovery from a wound or disease, especially after a treatment has been applied).
Claims 3-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McCall et al. (US20200193580 A1, hereinafter, “McCall”) in view of DeBernardis et al. (US20160058288 A1, hereinafter, “DeBernardis”) further in view of Farkas et al. (US20150374276 A1, hereinafter, “Farkas”).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of McCall and DeBernardis teaches the imaging system of Claim 1, wherein the instructions further configure the one or more processors to determine one or more measurements of at least a portion of the tissue region based at least in part on the 3D model (See DeBernardis, ¶ [0070] use the 3D image while directly examining the lesion; ¶ [0131] determining features such as lesion volume and area of disorganization) [and on a prior calibration of the imaging system.]
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify McCall’s reference wherein the instructions further configure the one or more processors to determine one or more measurements of at least a portion of the tissue region based at least in part on the 3D model based on the method of DeBernardis’s reference. The suggestion/motivation would have been to improve analysis and diagnosis of lesions as suggested by DeBernardis in ¶ [0070].
However, the combination of McCall and DeBernardis does not teach wherein the instructions further configure the one or more processors to [determine one or more measurements of at least a portion of the tissue region based at least in part on the 3D model] and on a prior calibration of the imaging system.
Farkas teaches wherein the instructions further configure the one or more processors to [determine one or more measurements of at least a portion of the tissue region based at least in part on the 3D model] and on a prior calibration of the imaging system (See Farkas, ¶ [0153] A calibration step is required to adjust the spatial and spectral intensity Z (x, y, λ), responses of the instrument, to correct for detector response, light source characteristics, and the instrument transfer functions. The imaging software determines camera exposure times for individual wavebands to optimize the cameras' dynamic range independent of illumination intensity variations. The calibration data cubes from imaging a Spectralon™ reflectance surface).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of McCall and DeBernardis’s reference wherein the instructions further configure the one or more processors to determine one or more measurements of at least a portion of the tissue region based at least in part on the 3D model and on a prior calibration of the imaging system based on the method of Farkas’s reference. The suggestion/motivation would have been to optimize the cameras' dynamic range independent of illumination intensity variations as suggested by Farkas in ¶ [0153].
Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above by known method with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Farkas with the combination of McCall and DeBernardis to obtain the invention as specified in claim 3.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of McCall, DeBernardis, and Farkas teaches the imaging system of Claim 3, wherein the one or more measurements comprise at least one of a length measurement, an area measurement, or a volume measurement of a portion of the tissue region (See McCall, ¶ [0057] the multi-aperture system may enable the collection of 3D spatial images of or relating to object curvature, depth, volume, and/or area).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of McCall, DeBernardis, and Farkas teaches the imaging system of Claim 3, wherein the one or more measurements comprise a cross-sectional profile of a portion of the tissue region (See DeBernardis, ¶ [0064] The 3D images can also be “sliced” to show interior portions from left to right, from right to left, and from top to bottom; ¶ [0066] Image 8 shows the same lesion with the top “sliced” off to show the interior).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify McCall’s reference wherein the visual representation comprises a two-dimensional cross-sectional profile of at least a portion of the tissue region based on the method of DeBernardis’s reference. The suggestion/motivation would have been to properly capture the shape of the lesion in 3D as suggested by DeBernardis at ¶ [0034].
Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above by known method with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine DeBernardis with McCall and Farkas to obtain the invention as specified in claim 5.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of McCall and DeBernardis does not teach wherein the prior calibration is performed based on imaging a standardized calibration target with the imaging system.
Farkas teaches wherein the prior calibration is performed based on imaging a standardized calibration target with the imaging system (See Farkas, ¶ [0153] A calibration step is required to adjust the spatial and spectral intensity Z (x, y, λ), responses of the instrument, to correct for detector response, light source characteristics, and the instrument transfer functions. The imaging software determines camera exposure times for individual wavebands to optimize the cameras' dynamic range independent of illumination intensity variations. The calibration data cubes from imaging a Spectralon™ reflectance surface).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of McCall and DeBernardis’s reference wherein the prior calibration is performed based on imaging a standardized calibration target with the imaging system based on the method of Farkas’s reference. The suggestion/motivation would have been to optimize the cameras' dynamic range independent of illumination intensity variations as suggested by Farkas in ¶ [0153].
Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above by known method with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Farkas with the combination of McCall and DeBernardis to obtain the invention as specified in claim 6.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of McCall, DeBernardis, and Farkas teaches the imaging system of Claim 3, wherein the one or more measurements are not determined based on a marker placed within a field of view of the imaging system (See DeBernardis, ¶ [0131] determining features such as lesion volume and area of disorganization… ability to image surrounding tissue allows the physician to determine a baseline of tissue features, thus utilizing imaging to guide margins when visually unattainable. Examiner considers no markers being used for measurements, but rather imaging, or images, of the tissue is being used to determine “features” of the tissue).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify McCall’s reference wherein the one or more measurements are not determined based on a marker placed within a field of view of the imaging system based on the method of DeBernardis’s reference. The suggestion/motivation would have been to increase surgery efficiency by viewing the 3-dimensional volume and construct of the lesion for margin guidance as suggested by DeBernardis at ¶ [0013].
Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above by known method with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine DeBernardis with McCall and Farkas to obtain the invention as specified in claim 7.
Regarding claim 8, the combination of McCall, DeBernardis, and Farkas teaches the imaging system of Claim 3, wherein the instructions further configure the one or more processors to perform one or more diagnostic analyses based at least in part on the one or more measurements (See McCall, ¶ [0133] facilitate and improve wound treatment procedures, for example allowing for a faster and more refined approach for determining the margin for debridement, and evaluate the progress of recovery from a wound or disease, especially after a treatment has been applied. Examiner considers evaluation of a wound as a diagnostic analyses).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McCall et al. (US20200193580 A1, hereinafter, “McCall”) in view of DeBernardis et al. (US20160058288 A1, hereinafter, “DeBernardis”), further in view of Farkas et al. (US20150374276 A1, hereinafter, “Farkas”), and further in view of Dorne (US 5325293 A, hereinafter, “Dorne”).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of McCall, DeBernardis, and Farkas does not teach wherein the instructions further configure the one or more processors to store a medical billing code identified based at least in part on the one or more measurements.
Dorne teaches wherein the instructions further configure the one or more processors to store a medical billing code identified based at least in part on the one or more measurements (See Dorne, Col. 18, lines 63-65, generate the CPT codes and RVU values associated with the selected medical procedures).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of McCall, DeBernardis, and Farkas’s reference wherein the instructions further configure the one or more processors to store a medical billing code identified based at least in part on the one or more measurements based on the method of Dorne’s reference. The suggestion/motivation would have been to rapidly and simply correlating CPT codes with medical procedures performed during a patient examination which does not require a thorough understanding of the nomenclature used by the CPT coding system as suggested by Dorne at Col. 3, lines 11-13.
Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above by known method with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Dorne with the combination of McCall, DeBernardis, and Farkas to obtain the invention as specified in claim 9.
Claims 16, 19, 20, 23, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McCall et al. (US20200193580 A1, hereinafter, “McCall”) in view of DeBernardis et al. (US20160058288 A1, hereinafter, “DeBernardis”) further in view of Liu et al. (Wound area measurement with 3D transformation and smartphone images, 2019, hereinafter, “Liu”).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of McCall and DeBernardis does not teach wherein the instructions further configure the one or more processors to align the multispectral image data based on image data corresponding to the first predetermined waveband.
Liu teaches wherein the instructions further configure the one or more processors to align the multispectral image data based on image data corresponding to the first predetermined waveband (See Liu, Pg. 15, left col., Lines 1-3, The characteristics of the images are matched according to the feature point set extracted from all relevant images).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of McCall and DeBernardis’s reference wherein the instructions further configure the one or more processors to align the multispectral image data based on image data corresponding to the first predetermined waveband based on the method of Liu’s reference. The suggestion/motivation would have been to restore the position relation between the cameras as suggested by Liu at Pg. 3, right col., second indented par., lines 2-3.
Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above by known method with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Liu with the combination of McCall and DeBernardis to obtain the invention as specified in claim 16.
Regarding claim 19, the combination of McCall and DeBernardis does not teach wherein the instructions further configure the one or more processors to detect at least a portion of an edge of the wound, uneven tissue surface, hyperpigmentation, or lesion based on the 3D model.
Liu teaches wherein the instructions further configure the one or more processors to detect at least a portion of an edge of the wound, uneven tissue surface, hyperpigmentation, or lesion based on the 3D model (See Liu, Pg. 3, left col., section wound measurement equipment, par. 3, lines 3-4, The laser launches two beams of light on the edge of the wound).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of McCall and DeBernardis’s reference wherein the instructions further configure the one or more processors to detect at least a portion of an edge of the wound, uneven tissue surface, hyperpigmentation, or lesion based on the 3D model based on the method of Liu’s reference. The suggestion/motivation would have been to generate the wound in a 3D model based on the surface topography as suggested by Lui at Pg. 3, left col., section wound measurement equipment, par. 3, lines 5-6.
Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above by known method with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Liu with the combination of McCall and DeBernardis to obtain the invention as specified in claim 19.
Regarding claim 20, the combination of McCall and DeBernardis does not teach wherein the instructions further configure the one or more processors to compute one or more gradients of the edges of the wound, uneven tissue surface, hyperpigmentation, or lesion with respect to a surface of the wound, uneven tissue surface, hyperpigmentation, or lesion.
Liu teaches wherein the instructions further configure the one or more processors to compute one or more gradients of the edges of the wound, uneven tissue surface, hyperpigmentation, or lesion with respect to a surface of the wound, uneven tissue surface, hyperpigmentation, or lesion (See Liu, Pg. 3, left col., section wound measurement equipment, par. 3, lines 3-6, The laser launches two beams of light on the edge of the wound, then the Silhouette mobile generates the wound in a 3D model based on the surface topography).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of McCall and DeBernardis’s reference wherein the instructions further configure the one or more processors to compute one or more gradients of the edges of the wound, uneven tissue surface, hyperpigmentation, or lesion with respect to a surface of the wound, uneven tissue surface, hyperpigmentation, or lesion based on the method of Liu’s reference. The suggestion/motivation would have been to generate the wound in a 3D model based on the surface topography as suggested by Lui at Pg. 3, left col., section wound measurement equipment, par. 3, lines 5-6.
Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above by known method with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Liu with the combination of McCall and DeBernardis to obtain the invention as specified in claim 20.
Regarding claim 23, the combination of McCall, DeBernardis, and Liu teaches wherein the instructions further configure the one or more processors to determine a characteristic comprising at least one of an area, a rim height, a volume, or a dermal composition of the wound, uneven tissue surface, hyperpigmentation, or lesion based on the 3D model and on the detected at least a portion of an edge of the wound, uneven tissue surface, hyperpigmentation, or lesion (See McCall, ¶ [0105] These states may be clinical states in the case of tissue imaging, for example burn states (e.g., first degree burn, second degree burn, third degree burn, or healthy tissue categories), wound states (e.g., hemostasis, inflammation, proliferation, remodeling or healthy skin categories), healing potential (e.g., a score reflecting the likelihood that the tissue will heal from a wounded state, with or without a particular therapy), perfusion states, cancerous states, or other wound-related tissue states).
Regarding claim 24, the combination of McCall, DeBernardis, and Liu teaches wherein the instructions further configure the one or more processors to evaluate a change in the characteristic based on a plurality of 3D models generated by the imaging system at different times (See McCall, ¶ [0132] a first color 1541 to denote pixels classified according to a first state and uses a second color 1542 to denote pixels classified according to a second state; ¶ [0129] The differences, if any within the acceptance tolerance, are used to alter the parameters of the estimation module 1180 and new tissue structural characteristics are applied to the input of the forward model 1190, and so forth, until all the outputs … from the forward model 1190 are within acceptance thresholds at unit 1112. Examiner considers the reiterative step of “and so forth” to mean that multiple models are being generated at different times).
Claims 21 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McCall et al. (US20200193580 A1, hereinafter, “McCall”) in view of DeBernardis et al. (US20160058288 A1, hereinafter, “DeBernardis”) further in view of further in view of Liu et al. (Wound area measurement with 3D transformation and smartphone images, 2019, hereinafter, “Liu”) and further in view Farkas et al. (US20150374276 A1, hereinafter, “Farkas”).
Regarding claim 21, the combination of McCall, DeBernardis, and Liu teaches the imaging system of Claim 20, wherein the instructions further configure the one or more processors to determine a status of the wound, uneven tissue surface, hyperpigmentation, or lesion (See McCall, ¶ [0105] These states may be clinical states in the case of tissue imaging, for example burn states (e.g., first degree burn, second degree burn, third degree burn, or healthy tissue categories), wound states (e.g., hemostasis, inflammation, proliferation, remodeling or healthy skin categories), healing potential (e.g., a score reflecting the likelihood that the tissue will heal from a wounded state, with or without a particular therapy), perfusion states, cancerous states, or other wound-related tissue states) [based on a comparison of the one or more gradients to a predetermined gradient threshold.]
However, the combination of McCall, DeBernardis, and Liu does not teach wherein the instructions further configure the one or more processors to [determine a status of the wound, uneven tissue surface, hyperpigmentation, or lesion] based on a comparison of the one or more gradients to a predetermined gradient threshold.
Farkas teaches wherein the instructions further configure the one or more processors to [determine a status of the wound, uneven tissue surface, hyperpigmentation, or lesion] based on a comparison of the one or more gradients to a predetermined gradient threshold (See Farkas, ¶ [0161] For example, as shown in FIG. 17(d), the slope of the attenuation spectrum in the melanocytic nevus core area (red lines) is steeper compared to the surrounding normal skin (green lines). Examiner considers the normal tissue as the threshold).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of McCall, DeBernardis, and Liu’s reference wherein the instructions further configure the one or more processors to determine a status of the wound, uneven tissue surface, hyperpigmentation, or lesion based on a comparison of the one or more gradients to a predetermined gradient threshold based on the method of Farkas’s reference. The suggestion/motivation would have been to show how the superficial and specular reflectance from the air-tissue interface is reduced and how more subsurface details (such as lesion boundary, micro-vascular patterns) become visible as suggested by Farkas at ¶ [0158].
Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above by known method with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Farkas with the combination of McCall, DeBernardis, and Liu to obtain the invention as specified in claim 21.
Regarding claim 22, the combination of McCall, DeBernardis, Liu, and Farkas teaches wherein the instructions further configure the one or more processors to evaluate a change in the status of the wound, uneven tissue surface, hyperpigmentation, or lesion based on a plurality of 3D models generated by the imaging system at different times (See McCall, ¶ [0133] evaluate the change in a wound or the generation of healthy tissue after a wound).
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McCall et al. (US20200193580 A1, hereinafter, “McCall”) in view of DeBernardis et al. (US20160058288 A1, hereinafter, “DeBernardis”) further in view of Stier et al. (Imaging sub-diffuse optical properties of cancerous and normal skin tissue using machine learning-aided spatial frequency domain imaging, 2021, hereinafter, “Stier”).
Regarding claim 29, the combination of McCall and DeBernardis does not teach wherein the visual representation comprises a heatmap.
Stier teaches wherein the visual representation comprises a heatmap (See Stier, Pg. 11, Fig. 4(a), (a) Selected regions of the H&E images, along with corresponding regions of the 𝜇′𝑠 and 𝛾 heatmaps at 530 nm, for each of the tissue subtypes. Areas of contrast which align with the marked regions of interest can be seen in the heatmaps).
PNG
media_image1.png
454
491
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of McCall and DeBernardis’s reference wherein the visual representation comprises a heatmap based on the method of Stier’s reference. The suggestion/motivation would have been to measure burn wound severity as suggested by Stier in Pg. 13, line 4.
Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above by known method with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Stier with the combination of McCall and DeBernardis to obtain the invention as specified in claim 29.
Claims 32 and 34-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McCall et al. (US20200193580 A1, hereinafter, “McCall”) in view of DeBernardis et al. (US20160058288 A1, hereinafter, “DeBernardis”), and further in view of Grossinger et al. (US 20210366142 A1, hereinafter, “Grossinger”).
Regarding claim 32, the combination of McCall and DeBernardis does not teach wherein the computer-executable instructions further configure the one or more processors to determine confidence values corresponding to the distance values associated with the individual corresponding sets of pixels.
Grossinger teaches wherein the computer-executable instructions further configure the one or more processors to determine confidence values corresponding to the distance values associated with the individual corresponding sets of pixels (See Grossinger, ¶ [0049] confidence maps may include a confidence value per pixel of a depth mode).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of McCall and DeBernardis’s reference wherein the computer-executable instructions further configure the one or more processors to determine confidence values corresponding to the distance values associated with the individual corresponding sets of pixels based on the method of Grossinger’s reference. The suggestion/motivation would have been to generate or update a depth model describing the local area as suggested by Grossinger in ¶ [0004].
Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above by known method with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Grossinger with the combination of McCall and DeBernardis to obtain the invention as specified in claim 32.
Regarding claim 34, the combination of McCall and DeBernardis does not teach wherein the confidence value comprises an uncertainty value expressed in a unit of dimension, such as length.
Grossinger teaches wherein the confidence value comprises an uncertainty value expressed in a unit of dimension, such as length (See Grossinger, ¶ [0049] quality values may be scalar uncertainty values, such as an object may be located within +/−5 cm of a specified location. Examiner considers the measurement of cm to be a unit of dimension).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of McCall and DeBernardis’s reference wherein the confidence value comprises an uncertainty value expressed in a unit of dimension, such as length based on the method of Grossinger’s reference. The suggestion/motivation would have been to generate or update a depth model describing the local area as suggested by Grossinger in ¶ [0004].
Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above by known method with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Grossinger with the combination of McCall and DeBernardis to obtain the invention as specified in claim 34.
Regarding claim 35, the combination of McCall and DeBernardis does not teach wherein the computer-executable instructions further configure the one or more processors to generate a confidence map of the tissue region based on the 3D model and the determined confidence values.
Grossinger teaches wherein the computer-executable instructions further configure the one or more processors to generate a confidence map of the tissue region based on the 3D model and the determined confidence values (See Grossinger, ¶ [0049] The data store 240 may store confidence maps associated with depth models of the local area).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of McCall and DeBernardis’s reference wherein the computer-executable instructions further configure the one or more processors to generate a confidence map of the tissue region based on the 3D model and the determined confidence values based on the method of Grossinger’s reference. The suggestion/motivation would have been to generate or update a depth model describing the local area as suggested by Grossinger in ¶ [0004].
Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above by known method with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Grossinger with the combination of McCall and DeBernardis to obtain the invention as specified in claim 35.
Regarding claim 36, the combination of McCall and DeBernardis does not teach wherein the computer-executable instructions further configure the one or more processors to exclude from the 3D model pixels having a confidence value satisfying a predetermined threshold.
Grossinger teaches wherein the computer-executable instructions further configure the one or more processors to exclude from the 3D model pixels having a confidence value satisfying a predetermined threshold (See Grossinger, ¶ [0049] The data store 240 may store threshold confidence values and threshold quantity values; [0060] For example, the depth determination module 250 may compare the confidence values in the confidence map to a confidence threshold value. If any of the confidence values are below the confidence threshold value, the depth determination module 250 determines to update the depth model to the refined depth model).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of McCall and DeBernardis’s reference wherein the computer-executable instructions further configure the one or more processors to generate a confidence map of the tissue region based on the 3D model and the determined confidence values based on the method of Grossinger’s reference. The suggestion/motivation would have been to generate or update a depth model describing the local area as suggested by Grossinger in ¶ [0004].
Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above by known method with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Grossinger with the combination of McCall and DeBernardis to obtain the invention as specified in claim 36.
Claim 33 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McCall et al. (US20200193580 A1, hereinafter, “McCall”) in view of DeBernardis et al. (US20160058288 A1, hereinafter, “DeBernardis”), further in view of Grossinger et al. (US 20210366142 A1, hereinafter, “Grossinger”), and further in view of Sedai et al. (US 20200285880 A1, hereinafter, “Sedai”).
Regarding claim 33, the combination of McCall and DeBernardis teaches wherein, for the individual corresponding sets of pixels, the distance value is determined based on the pixels of the first image and the second image (See McCall, ¶ [0070] Disparity refers to the distance between two corresponding points in the left and right (or upper and lower) images of a stereoscopic pair, such that the same physical point in the object space can appear in different locations in each image) [and the confidence value is determined based at least in part on the pixels of the third image.]
However, the combination of McCall and DeBernardis does not teach [wherein, for the individual corresponding sets of pixels, the distance value is determined based on the pixels of the first image and the second image] and the confidence value is determined based at least in part on the pixels of the third image.
Grossinger teaches [wherein, for the individual corresponding sets of pixels, the distance value is determined based on the pixels of the first image and the second image] and the confidence value (See Grossinger, ¶ [0049] confidence maps may include a confidence value per pixel of a depth mode) [is determined based at least in part on the pixels of the third image.]
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of McCall and DeBernardis’s reference wherein the confidence value [is determined based at least in part on the pixels of the third image] based on the method of Grossinger’s reference. The suggestion/motivation would have been to generate or update a depth model describing the local area as suggested by Grossinger at ¶ [0004].
However, the combination of McCall, DeBernardis, and Grossinger does not teach [wherein, for the individual corresponding sets of pixels, the distance value is determined based on the pixels of the first image and the second image and the confidence value is determined] based at least in part on the pixels of the third image.
Sedai teaches [wherein, for the individual corresponding sets of pixels, the distance value is determined based on the pixels of the first image and the second image and the confidence value is determined] based at least in part on the pixels of the third image (See Sedai, ¶ [0044] registering an additional image, computing an uncertainty map corresponding to the additional image).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of McCall, DeBernardis, and Grossinger’s reference wherein [the confidence value] is determined based at least in part on the pixels of the third image based on the method of Sedai’s reference. The suggestion/motivation would have been to further improve the quality of the composite image as suggested by Sedai at ¶ [0045].
Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above by known method with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Sedai with the combination of McCall, DeBernardis, and Grossinger to obtain the invention as specified in claim 33.
Claims 37 and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McCall et al. (US20200193580 A1, hereinafter, “McCall”) in view of DeBernardis et al. (US20160058288 A1, hereinafter, “DeBernardis”), further in view of Grossinger et al. (US 20210366142 A1, hereinafter, “Grossinger”), and further in view of Zhou et al. ((Real-Time Dense Reconstruction of Tissue Surface From Stereo Optical Video 2020, hereinafter, “Zhou”).
Regarding claim 37, the combination of McCall, DeBernardis, and Grossinger does not teach wherein identifying the corresponding sets of pixels in the captured images comprises evaluating a cost function to identify matching areas or pixels between the first image and the second image.
Zhou teaches wherein identifying the corresponding sets of pixels in the captured images comprises evaluating a cost function to identify matching areas or pixels between the first image and the second image (See Zhou, Pg. 403, right col., section C, lines 8-11, We integrate a cost function that consists of the ZNCC metrics and the smoothing cost into this improved Laplacian framework to allow for dynamically updating the disparities).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of McCall, DeBernardis, and Grossinger’s reference wherein identifying the corresponding sets of pixels in the captured images comprises evaluating a cost function to identify matching areas or pixels between the first image and the second image based on the method of Zhou’s reference. The suggestion/motivation would have been to generate fine 3D models as suggested by Zhou at Pg. 400, right col., first indented par., lines 6-7.
Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above by known method with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Zhou with the combination of McCall, DeBernardis, and Grossinger to obtain the invention as specified in claim 37.
Regarding claim 38, the combination of McCall, DeBernardis, and Grossinger does not teach wherein identifying the matching areas or pixels comprises minimizing the cost function.
Zhou teaches wherein identifying the matching areas or pixels comprises minimizing the cost function (See Zhou, Pg. 402, right col., section II, par. 2, lines 14-16, This method is able to build large connections among pixels when minimizing the cost function).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of McCall, DeBernardis, and Grossinger’s reference wherein identifying the matching areas or pixels comprises minimizing the cost function based on the method of Zhou’s reference. The suggestion/motivation would have been to generate fine 3D models as suggested by Zhou at Pg. 400, right col., first indented par., lines 6-7.
Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above by known method with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Zhou with the combination of McCall, DeBernardis, and Grossinger to obtain the invention as specified in claim 38.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Brisedoux et al. (US 20130021447 A1) discloses a method for capturing a first and second image using a first and second image sensor to generate a new image that utilizes both images. Using a first and second image sensor improves image processing and can yield in an improved quality image, resulting in better exposure and dynamic range of an object.
DiMaio et al. (US 20170367580 A1) discloses a method for optical imaging using multiple images taken at different times with different frequencies. The optical images are then used to classify tissue, assess burns or other wounds, or monitor the healing process before and after treatment.
Fa et al. (US 20140369584 A1) discloses a method of locating a lesion in tissue by generating a three-dimensional model of the tissue surface. Three-dimensional surface mapping is used to extract surface features of a tissue to aid in getting cavity volume or location which in turn helps ensure all targeted tissue is removed while preserving the healthy tissue.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jasmin Marcelino Hernandez whose telephone number is (571) 270-0211. The examiner can normally be reached 7am-3pm 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, Henok Shiferaw can be reached at (571) 272-4637. 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.
/JASMIN MARCELINO HERNAND/Examiner, Art Unit 2676
/Henok Shiferaw/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2676
Prosecution Insights