DETAILED ACTION
Claim 10 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claims 1,2,4,5,3,6,7,10,11 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim(s) 1,2,4,5,3,10,11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated1 by Sabina et al. (US 11,013,581 B2).
Claim(s) 1,2,4,5,3,10,11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated2 by Sabina et al. (US 11,013,581 B2).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sabina et al. (US 11,013,581 B2) in view of OUYANG (US 2020/0169649 A1):
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sabina et al. (US 11,013,581 B2) in view of OUYANG (US 2020/0169649 A1) as applied in claims 6 further in view of Huang et al. (US 2016/0284090 A1):
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sabina et al. (US 11,013,581 B2) in view of OUYANG (US 2020/0169649 A1) as applied in claims 6 further in view of Takano et al. (US 2015/0363979 A1):
PNG
media_image1.png
362
140
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Response to Amendment
The preliminary amendment was received 7/25/2024. Claims 1,2,4,5,3,6,7,8,10,11 pending. Claims 9,12 cancel.
PNG
media_image1.png
362
140
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 10 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claim 10’s “A computer-readable storage medium” “may”3 or can or might be a signal, which is non-statutory under 35 USC 101, in view of applicant’s disclosure to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Suggested amendment in view applicant’s disclosure, pg. 13:
PNG
media_image2.png
1326
893
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claims 1,2,4,5,3,6,7,10,11 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
PNG
media_image1.png
362
140
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Step 0: Establish broadest reasonable interpretation, shown in footnotes throughout;
Step 1: claim 1 is a process; claim 10 is non-statutory as discussed above;
Step 2A, prong 1:
The claim(s) recite(s) an abstract idea via claim 1:
acquiring a visible light image …
fusing the visible light image …
dividing the fused image into oral cavity blocks …
locating a lesion area according to a lesion block in a result of the dividing:
1. (Original) A multispectral4 image recognition5 method, comprising:
acquiring a visible light image 6 of an oral cavity by using a camera module;
fusing the visible light image
dividing the fused image into oral cavity blocks according to the fused image;
locating a lesion area according to a lesion block in a result of the dividing.
Step 2A, prong 2:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements considered individually and in combination does not improve technology/technical field (“image processing” & “recognition”) in view of applicant’s disclosure (with respect to the specification’s disclosure at page 6, penult paragraph, about fig. 1: step S102):
PNG
media_image3.png
1315
875
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
198
800
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
267
803
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
1326
871
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
201
799
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
292
824
media_image8.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image9.png
1316
876
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Likewise to applicant’s page 6 (reproduce above), penultimate paragraph: MPEP:
PNG
media_image10.png
666
905
media_image10.png
Greyscale
In contrast, claim 8 “reflects the disclosed improvement” in applicant’s specification’s page 6, penult paragraph regarding disclosed step S102. Thus claim 8 not rejected under 35 USC 101.
Step 2B:
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements individually or combined to the abstract adhere to the conventional in view of applicant’s disclosure:
PNG
media_image11.png
1322
882
media_image11.png
Greyscale
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1,2,4,5,3,10,11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated7 by Sabina et al. (US 11,013,581 B2).
Claim(s) 1,2,4,5,3,10,11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated8 by Sabina et al. (US 11,013,581 B2).
PNG
media_image12.png
362
339
media_image12.png
Greyscale
Re 1. (Original), Sabina discloses A multispectral9 image recognition method, (likewise) comprising10:
acquiring a visible light image 1112 13 of an oral cavity by using a camera module (or likewise “For example, any of these apparatuses may include a visible light source or other (including non-visible) light source for surface detection (e.g., at or around 680 nm, or other appropriate wavelengths).”, c.20,ll.40-45: fig. 2:293: “Wavelength selective Quarter Waveplate”);
fusing the visible light image
dividing the fused image into oral cavity blocks according to the fused image (or likewise segmenting a fused/mixed image via “3D volumet-ric image…segmenting the”, c.24,ll. 15-25, “hybrid image that…like FIG. 9E combines and mixes both surface image scanning (e.g., a visible light scan, as shown in FIG. 11A) with a volumetric model”, c. 23, line 52 to c. 24,l. 21, “Once the volume has been segmented, these regions may be …flagged [see fig. 17:1703: “Flag…a location”] and used for further analysis, display and modification of the scanning methods and systems.”, c.26,ll.45-50);
locating a lesion area according to14 a lesion block in a result (or likewise “flagging the dental feature on the model … location of the dental feature… and… confidence”, c. 14,ll. 10-15) of the dividing.
Re 2. (Original), Sabina discloses The multispectral image recognition method according to claim 1, wherein the step of dividing the fused image into oral cavity blocks according to the fused image comprises:
matching the fused image with images of blocks in an image frame database (or likewise “In FIG. 17, the method (or a system configured to perform it) may identify one or more actionable dental features from one or more records (e.g., one or more images or sets of images of the patient's teeth taken with different imaging modalities) 1701.”, c.48,ll.20-25);
15;
reconstructing the fused image 16 to obtain reconstructed image data (or likewise “hybrid image…displaying”, c. 23,l.51 to c, 24,l.2).
Re 4. (Original), Sabina discloses The multispectral image recognition method according to claim 2, wherein the step of locating a lesion area according to a lesion block in a result of the dividing comprises:
determining a location information of the lesion block according to the reconstructed image data (as shown by the “mark”17 in fig. 10B:1011’ via “FIG. 10B shows the same features of FIG. 10A, but with a region marked or flagged 1011”, c.32,ll.35-40);
locating the lesion area according to a correlation between the location information of the lesion block and a tooth region (or likewise “correlating a record…and…a 3D model…to determine landmarks…This allows…translation of position”, c.46,l.49 to c.47,l.5).
Re 5. (Original), Sabina discloses The multispectral image recognition method according to claim 4, wherein the step of locating the lesion area according to a correlation between the location information of the lesion block and a tooth region comprises:
displaying an updated three-dimensional image according to the reconstructed image data (or likewise “as the viewing window is moved, each of two image displays 1405, 1407 are updated”, c.43,ll. 50-55);
labeling a lesion region (or likewise a “label…display…used…to…display…a region of…caries…in which there is a change over time, e.g., from one scan to another scan”, c. 27,ll.20-35) in the updated three-dimensional image according to the correlation between the location information of the lesion block and the tooth region.
Re 3. (Original), Sabina discloses The multispectral image recognition method according to claim 1, wherein the step of dividing the fused image into oral cavity blocks according to the fused image further comprises:
comparing spectral characteristic parameters of the fused image with spectral characteristic parameters (or likewise “comparing across difference records…comparing a near-IR transparency value of a region within the 3D model to a threshold value”, c.31,ll.10-35) of a standard oral cavity image to obtain difference values of spectral characteristic parameters;
according to a relationship between the difference values of spectral characteristic parameters and a tooth lesion (or likewise “the region of the patient's dental arch may comprises a dental feature comprises one or more of: cracks, gum recess, tartar, enamel thickness, pits, caries, pits, fissures, evidence of grinding, and interproximal voids”, c.31,ll. 25-30), obtaining a lesion block (or likewise “Identifying the region”, c.31,ll.30-35) 18.
Re 10. (Currently Amended),Sabina discloses A computer-readable storage medium19, wherein computer instructions are stored in the computer-readable storage medium, and the computer instructions are configured to cause a computer to execute the multispectral image recognition method according to any one of claims-l-8 claim 1.
Re 11. (Currently Amended),Sabina discloses An electronic device, comprising a memory and a processor, wherein the memory and the processor are in communicational connection with each other; the memory has computer instructions stored therein; and the processor is configured to execute the computer instructions to perform the multispectral image recognition method according to any one of claims 1-8claim 1.
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.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sabina et al. (US 11,013,581 B2) in view of OUYANG (US 2020/0169649 A1):
PNG
media_image13.png
362
424
media_image13.png
Greyscale
Re 6. (Original), Sabina discloses The multispectral image recognition method according to claim 1, wherein the step of fusing the visible light image
performing binocular stereo matching20 according to the visible light image (or likewise “light sources matched to the mode being detected”, c. 20,ll.40-45) to generate an RGBD image (or likewise “take RGB images of the teeth at the same/similar time” c.34,ll.55-50) in which a depth image and the visible light image are fused (or likewise “ FIG. 11C shows a hybrid image in which the 3D volumetric image has been combined with the surface scan, showing both surface and internal structures, including the carries and the bubbled region.”, c. 17,ll. 25-30);
D image 21
Sabina does not teach the difference of claim 6 of:
binocular stereo (matching)22…23(an RGB)D (image)…(a) depth (image)…
(the RGB)D (image).
OUYANG teach the difference of claim 6 of:
binocular 24 (or likewise “binocular camera…overlap” [0075]1st & 2nd Ss) (matching25)26…27(an RGB)D (image)…(a) depth (image) (or likewise “depth information…RGBD” [0075] last S)…
(the RGB)D (image).
Since Sabina suggests modifying RGB by providing an example, c.34,ll.55-65:
The methods and apparatuses described herein may take RGB images of the teeth at the same/similar time with taking 3D scans of the teeth. These scans may then be used to build the 3D model of the teeth/jaw, which may include the volumetric information (3D volumetric model). For example, RGB images may show emphasized signal of fluorescent surfaces, specifically plaque and calculus regions, due to specific characteristic of color and brightness of such surfaces, as mentioned. For example, the image of the outer surface (and in some cases the volumetric model) of the teeth may show regions having optical properties (florescence, brightness, color, etc.) indicative of calculus and/or plaque. In some variations, this emphasized signal may result from the spectral illumination that creates no reflection in visible light, but creates a significant fluorescence signal from plaque and calculus. For example, typical RGB illumination (using a common RGB sensor), may be modified to provide amplification of the fluorescence signal (e.g., in near-IR regions) on the outer surface of the teeth. This amplification can be achieved by, as a non-limiting example, a large aperture that enables IR signals to pass, and small aperture that enables the regular RGB (visible) spectrum to pass. This combination may produce color images with extra emphasis on fluorescent surfaces. Such fluorescence may manifest in characteristic colors and brightness of the desired regions indicating calculus and/or plaque on the teeth.
one of skill in the art would of looked to other teachings with respect to the RGB example and thus make Sabina’s be as OUYANG’s seeing in the change “that three-dimensional reconstruction of an oral endoscopic image is more accurate and rapid”, OUYANG [0089] via explicit creative steps:
a) obtain an RGB image of Sabina;
b) obtain an infrared (IR) structured light depth image of OUYANG;
c) create an RGBD image synthesis/fusing program according to OUYANG’s fig. 18:100,110: “performs three-dimensional image synthesis” fusing the RGB to the depth map;
d) install/execute the RGBD fusing program to Sabina’s computer of fig. 1:115: “Memory”; and
e) make the synthesized/fused RGBD images be as Sabina’s image of fig. 17:1701: “one or more images or sets of images of the patient’s teeth taken with different imaging modalities”.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sabina et al. (US 11,013,581 B2) in view of OUYANG (US 2020/0169649 A1) as applied in claims 6 further in view of Huang et al. (US 2016/0284090 A1):
PNG
media_image14.png
362
563
media_image14.png
Greyscale
Re 7. (Original), OUYANG of the combination of Sabina,OUYANG teaches The multispectral image recognition method according to claim 6, wherein the step of performing binocular
performing parameter calibration on the camera module that acquires the visible light image (or likewise “the at least two camera units 31 are calibrated as internal parameters of the image acquisition module 3” OUYANG [0071]);
performing distortion correction and stereo paired epipolar rectification on the calibrated image to obtain a corrected image;
obtaining a disparity map by 28 vision matching29 (or likewise “image information is added with corresponding timestamp information of image acquisition and identification of camera units 31” OUYANG [0127]) according to the corrected image;
converting the disparity map to obtain a depth image (or likewise “capture depth images” OUYANG [0092] 3rd S);
selecting one visible light image according to the image quality thereof (or likewise “image capturing at a higher quality30” OUYANG [0087]), and
fusing 31 the corresponding depth image to generate the RGBD image (or likewise “depth information … In addition, true color (RGB) information of the subject can also be acquired …therefore, the camera unit 31 can acquire three-dimensional true color information (RGBD).” OUYANG [0075] last S).
OUYANG of the combination of Sabina,OUYANG does not teach the difference of claim 7 of:
performing 32 stereo paired 33343536 rectification on (the calibrated image to obtain a) corrected (image);
obtaining a disparity map by … according to the corrected (image) …
converting the disparity map.
Huang teach the difference of claim 7 of:
performing 37 stereo paired 38394041 rectification on (the calibrated image to obtain a) corrected (image) (or likewise “perform rectification on calibrated stereo image data 111” [0030] 2nd S);
obtaining a disparity map by … according to the corrected (image) (or likewise “ generate disparity map data (DM) 113 based on rectified stereo image data 112” [0031] 1st S)…
converting the disparity map (or likewise “ a disparity map (e.g., such that disparity values at all or some pixel locations of first image 301 are determined and provided in the disparity map) and/or disparity value 306 may be translated” [0039] last S).
Since OUYANG of the combination of Sabina,OUYANG suggests binocular42 stereo vision is commonly used via
[0132] Further, according to requirements of image information processing, the master control module 42 can further include a three-dimensional image information preprocessing unit, to finish a preprocessing task of three-dimensional image information, for example, for the condition that the camera unit 31 is a binocular camera, during preprocessing of three-dimensional image information, a binocular computer vision algorithm (this is a commonly used technique in the field, and the output format of the algorithm is RGBD) can be adopted to perform preprocessing of three-dimensional image information. Specifically, functions of a three-dimensional image information preprocessing unit can be specifically realized by adopting FPGA.
one of skill in the art would of looked to other teachings of binocular/stereo teachings and thus make OUYANG’s of the combination of Sabina,OUYANG be as Hunag’s seeing in the change “improved computer stereo vision processing”, Huang [0022] last S via explicit creative steps:
a) install Huang’s processor of fig. 10:1001 comprising rectification/calibration/ stereo processing into Ouyang’s fig. 15: “Master control module”;
b) install Huang’s Disparity/Depth program of fig. 5 into QUYANG’s fig. 15:43: “Storage module”;
b) run OUYANG’s synthesis program of fig. 18: steps 100 & 110;
b) when at QUYANG’s program synthesis step of fig. 110, call Huang’s Disparity/Depth program of fig. 5;
c) making the Disparity/Depth of Huang’s disparity/depth program be as QUYANG’s “D” of RGBD.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sabina et al. (US 11,013,581 B2) in view of OUYANG (US 2020/0169649 A1) as applied in claims 6 further in view of Takano et al. (US 2015/0363979 A1):
PNG
media_image15.png
362
583
media_image15.png
Greyscale
Re 8. (Original), OUYANG of the combination of Sabina,OUYANG teaches The multispectral image recognition method according to claim 6, wherein the step of the non-visible light image (via the combination of Sabina,OUYANG in the rejection of claim 6) to generate the fused image comprises:
performing parameter calibration on the camera module that acquires the non-visible light image (or said likewise “the at least two camera units 31 are calibrated as internal parameters of the image acquisition module 3” OUYANG [0071]);
calculating an offset of the non-visible light image relative to the RGBD image;
superposing the non-visible light image43 onto the RGBD image according to the offset to generate the fused image.
OUYANG of the combination of Sabina,OUYANG does not teach the difference of claim 8 of:
offset…
superposing (the non-visible light image)44 onto (the RGBD image)…45the offset.
Takano teach the difference of claim 8 of:
offset46 (or likewise “corrected47 superimposition information CP1” [0111] 2nd S:
PNG
media_image16.png
820
1028
media_image16.png
Greyscale
)…
superposing (the non-visible light image)48 onto (the RGBD image) (or likewise “ superimposing invisible information which is not shown in an appearance of an object on the object included in the external scenery.” [0010] 2nd S)…49the offset.
Since Sabina of the combination of Sabina,OUYANG suggests other models and modalities, such as a color model, infrared model, OCT model, US model, MR model. X-ray model etc., c.2,ll.15-30:
Described herein are methods and apparatuses for taking, using and displaying dental information including information extracted from three-dimensional (3D) volumetric models of a patient's dental arch. A 3D volumetric model may include surface (e.g., color) information as well as information on internal structure, such as near-infrared (near-IR) transparency values for internal structures including enamel and dentin. In some variations, the 3D volumetric scan may include or be derived from one or more other scanning modalities, including, but not limited to: optical coherence tomography (OCT), ultrasound (US), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), X-ray, etc.
one of skill in the art of imaging would of looked to other teachings of models and modalities such as Takano’s teaching of a 3D model with MR and xray:
[0246] For example, in step S102, the user stores the invisible information of the object which is a target of the superimposition information display process in the invisible information storage portion. The invisible information of the above-described embodiments is assumed to be an image which is captured by an image capturing apparatus (a CT apparatus, an MRI apparatus, an X-ray apparatus, an endoscope, a thermography apparatus, or the like) and is represented in a two-dimensional manner. However, invisible information which is represented in a three-dimensional manner may be stored in step S102. The invisible information which is represented in a three-dimensional manner is a three-dimensional model which is created from a plurality of images captured by the image capturing apparatus. In a case of using the invisible information which is represented in a three-dimensional manner, the superimposition processing unit performs rendering of a three-dimensional model on the basis of the external scenery image acquired in step S202, between steps S202 and S204 of the superimposition information generation process (FIG. 8). In addition, the subsequent processes are continuously performed using the rendered images as “invisible information”. In this way, it is possible to visually recognize information which is not shown in the appearance of the target object from various directions. Further, the invisible information stored in step S102 is not limited to a still image and may be a moving image.
in order to build a 3D volumetric model and thus make Sabina’s of the combination of Sabina,OUYANG be as Takano’s seeing in the change that “the superimposition processing unit divides the image indicating the invisible information into a plurality of regions and then corrects each region. Therefore, it is possible to improve accuracy of the correction of the invisible information.” Takano [0017] last S via “explicit…creative steps”50:
a) obtain an RGB image of Sabina;
b) obtain an infrared (IR) structured light depth image of OUYANG;
c) create an RGBD image synthesis/fusing program according to OUYANG’s fig. 18:100,110: “performs three-dimensional image synthesis” fusing the RGB to the depth map;
d) install/execute the RGBD fusing program to Sabina’s computer of fig. 1:115: “Memory”; and
e) make the synthesized/fused RGBD images be as Sabina’s image of fig. 17:1701: “one or more images or sets of images of the patient’s teeth taken with different imaging modalities”,
wherein step c):
make OUYANG’s of the combination of Sabina,OUYANG image synthesis (fig. 18) comprise Takano’s superposing (fig. 8):
PNG
media_image17.png
1340
849
media_image17.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
The prior art “nearest to the subject matter defined in the claims” (MPEP 707.05) made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The following table lists several references that are relevant to the subject matter claimed and disclosed in this Application. The references are not relied on by the Examiner, but are provided to assist the Applicant in responding to this Office action:
Citation
Relevance
IDS (7/25/2024) cited Sharma et al. (US 2019/0117078 A1): a D1 reference.
Sharma suggests combining optical (i.e., visual) with x-rays (non-visible), [0188], 2nd to last S:
“For example, the O51CT system can be combined with the fluorescence52 spectroscopy system to obtain an OCT image of the periodontal region or the root canal as well as estimate the bacterial load in the periodontal region or the root canal.”
as the closest to the claimed “fusing the visible light image and the non-visible light image” of claim 1.
IDS (7/25/2024) cited OUYANG (CN 107644454 A): a D2 reference: having the same name as OUYANG (US 2020/0169649 A1) as applied in the rejection of claim 6.
OUYANG (CN 107644454 A) teaches:
“step C: according to the three-dimensional image frame stored in the database, determining the image data corresponding to the splicing block, and determining the block position in the three-dimensional image profile stored by the user; and the image data reconstructed after determining the splicing position in the three-dimensional image corresponding to the profile of the user to obtain the reconstructed three dimensional image data, wherein the three-dimensional image frame database stores the three-dimensional image frame divided image block of each block of image data and image position information;”
as the closest to the claimed:
“fusing the visible light image and the non-visible light image” of claim 1; and
“matching the fused image with images of blocks in an image frame database” of claim 2.
Thus IDS cited OUYANG (CN 107644454 A) is applicable to the current rejection of claim 2 via 35 USC 103 applicable to a narrow subset (i.e., claim 2’s unsatisfied contingent limitation) of the broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 2.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DENNIS ROSARIO whose telephone number is (571)272-7397. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9AM-5PM 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.
/DENNIS ROSARIO/Examiner, Art Unit 2676
/MATTHEW C BELLA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2667
1 MPEP 2131 Anticipation — Application of 35 U.S.C. 102 [R-08.2017], 2nd para, 2nd to last S:“The elements must be arranged as required by the claim, but this is not an ipsissimis verbis test, i.e., identity of terminology is not required. In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 15 USPQ2d 1566 (Fed. Cir. 1990).”
2 MPEP 2131 Anticipation — Application of 35 U.S.C. 102 [R-08.2017], 2nd para, 2nd to last S:“The elements must be arranged as required by the claim, but this is not an ipsissimis verbis test, i.e., identity of terminology is not required. In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 15 USPQ2d 1566 (Fed. Cir. 1990).”
3 Applicant’s disclosure, page 12,13:
--It can be understood by those skilled m the art that all or part of the processes in the methods of the above embodiments can be completed by using a computer program to instruct related hardware, such a program may be stored in a computer-readable storage medium, and when executed, the program can include the processes of the above method embodiments The storage medium may be a magnetic disk, an optical disk, a Read-Only Memory (ROM), a Random Access Memory (RAM), a Flash Memory, a Hard Disk Drive (HDD) or a Solid-State Drive (SSD), etc , The storage medium may also comprise a combination of the above kinds of memories.—wherein may is defined: (used to express contingency, especially in clauses indicating condition, concession, purpose, result, etc.), wherein contingency is defined: a contingent event; a chance, accident, or possibility conditional on something uncertain, wherein contingent is defined: dependent for existence, occurrence, character, etc., on something not yet certain; conditional (often followed by on orupon ) (Dictionary.com)
4 multispectral: (of an airborne camera or scanner) capable of sensing and recording radiation from invisible as well as visible parts of the electromagnetic spectrum, wherein capable of is defined: predisposed to; inclined to, wherein incline is defined: to have a mental tendency, preference, etc.; be disposed., wherein preference is defined: that which is preferred; choice.(Dictionary.com)
5 “multispectral
6 The crossed out text “does not limit the scope of a claim under the broadest reasonable claim interpretation” via MPEP 2143.03 All Claim Limitations Must Be Considered [R-01.2024], 3rd para:
As a general matter, the grammar (e.g., “and”: (used to connect alternatives). (Dictionary.com)) and ordinary meaning of terms as understood by one having ordinary skill in the art used in a claim will dictate whether, and to what extent, the language limits the claim scope. Language (Claim 1’s “a visible light image and a non-visible light image”, wherein “and” is defined: (used to connect alternatives). (Dictionary.com)) that suggests or makes a feature or step optional but does not require that feature or step does not limit the scope of a claim under the broadest reasonable claim interpretation (in light of the specification, last page, last paragraph that essentially states making variations (i.e., alternatives) without departing from the scope of the application and that such Markush alternatives/variations are all within the scope of claim 1:
“Although the embodiments of the present application have been described in connection with the appended drawings, a person skilled m the art can still make various modifications and variations without departing from the spirit and scope of the present application, and such modifications and variations are all within the scope defined by the appended claims”
). In addition, when a claim requires selection of an element from a list of (Markush) alternatives (Claim 1’s “a visible light image and a non-visible light image”), the prior art teaches the element if one of the alternatives is taught by the prior art. See, e.g., Fresenius USA, Inc. v. Baxter Int’l, Inc., 582 F.3d 1288, 1298, 92 USPQ2d 1163, 1171 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
7 MPEP 2131 Anticipation — Application of 35 U.S.C. 102 [R-08.2017], 2nd para, 2nd to last S:“The elements must be arranged as required by the claim, but this is not an ipsissimis verbis test, i.e., identity of terminology is not required. In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 15 USPQ2d 1566 (Fed. Cir. 1990).”
8 MPEP 2131 Anticipation — Application of 35 U.S.C. 102 [R-08.2017], 2nd para, 2nd to last S:“The elements must be arranged as required by the claim, but this is not an ipsissimis verbis test, i.e., identity of terminology is not required. In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 15 USPQ2d 1566 (Fed. Cir. 1990).”
9 multispectral: (of an airborne camera or scanner) capable of sensing and recording radiation from invisible as well as visible parts of the electromagnetic spectrum, wherein capable of is defined: predisposed to; inclined to, wherein incline is defined: to have a mental tendency, preference, etc.; be disposed., wherein preference is defined: that which is preferred; choice.(Dictionary.com)
10 BROAD CLAIM LANGUAGE: -ing (of “comprising”): a suffix of nouns formed from verbs, expressing the action of the verb or its result, product, material, etc. (the art of building; a new building; cotton wadding )., wherein etc. is defined: and others; and so forth; and so on (used to indicate that more of the same sort or class might have been mentioned, but for brevity have been omitted), wherein so is defined: likewise or correspondingly; also; too. (Dictionary.com)
11 CLAIM SCOPE via applicant’s disclosure, last page, last para:
--Although the embodiments of the present application have been described in connection with the appended drawings, a person skilled m the art can still make various modifications and variations [i.e., an alternative form of something] without departing from the spirit and scope of the present application, and such modifications and variations [i.e., an alternative form of something] are all within the scope defined by the appended claims—wherein variations are defined: a different form of something; variant, wherein different is defined: various; several, wherein various is defined: variant ADJECTIVE., wherein variant ADJECTIVE is defined: not definitive, as a version of part of a text; different; alternative. (Dictionary.com): an alternative form of something, wherein form is defined: Grammar.
a. a word, part of a word, or group of words (claim 1’s “a visible light image and a non-visible light image”) forming a construction that recurs in various contexts in a language with relatively constant meaning.
b. a particular shape of such a form that occurs in more than one shape. In I'm, 'm is a form of am.
c. a word with a particular inflectional ending or other modification. Goes is a form of go.
12 and: (used to connect alternatives). (Dictionary.com)
13 The crossed out text (MPEP 2143.03 All Claim Limitations Must Be Considered [R-01.2024], 3rd para:
As a general matter, the grammar (for example form) and ordinary meaning of terms (“and’) as understood by one having ordinary skill in the art used in a claim will dictate whether, and to what extent, the language limits the claim scope. Language (“and” of claim 1’s “a visible light image and a non-visible light image”) that suggests or makes a feature or step optional but does not require that feature or step does not limit the scope of a claim under the broadest reasonable claim interpretation (see applicant’s disclosure last page, last paragraph regarding “scope” and “variations” [i.e., an alternative form of something] thereof). In addition, when a claim requires selection of an element from a list of alternatives (claim 1’s “a visible light image and a non-visible light image”), the prior art teaches the element if one of the alternatives is taught by the prior art. See, e.g., Fresenius USA, Inc. v. Baxter Int’l, Inc., 582 F.3d 1288, 1298, 92 USPQ2d 1163, 1171 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
14 according to: contingent on, wherein contingent is defined: dependent for existence, occurrence, character, etc., on something not yet certain; conditional (often followed by on or upon), wherein etc. is defined: and others; and so forth; and so on (used to indicate that more of the same sort or class might have been mentioned, but for brevity have been omitted), wherein so is defined: likewise or correspondingly; also; too. . (Dictionary.com)
15 The crossed-out MPEP 2111.04 II. CONTIGENT LIMITATIONS, 3rd para:
See Ex parte Schulhauser, Appeal 2013-007847 (PTAB April 28, 2016) for an analysis of contingent claim limitations in the context of both method claims and system claims. In Schulhauser, both method claims and system claims recited the same contingent step. When analyzing the claimed method as a whole, the PTAB determined that giving the claim its broadest reasonable interpretation, "[i]f the condition for performing a contingent step is not satisfied, the performance recited by the step need not be carried out in order for the claimed method to be performed" (quotation omitted). Schulhauser at 10. When analyzing the claimed system as a whole, the PTAB determined that "[t]he broadest reasonable interpretation of a system claim having structure that performs a function, which only needs to occur if a condition precedent is met, still requires structure for performing the function should the condition occur." Schulhauser at 14. Therefore "[t]he Examiner did not need to present evidence of the obviousness of the [ ] method steps of claim 1 that are not required to be performed under a broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim (e.g., instances in which the electrocardiac signal data is not within the threshold electrocardiac criteria such that the condition precedent for the determining step and the remaining steps of claim 1 has not been met);" however to render the claimed system obvious, the prior art must teach the structure that performs the function of the contingent step along with the other recited claim limitations. Schulhauser at 9, 14.
16 This crossed out text (“at the determined location in the image contour”) does not effectively limit claim 2 via –Does “at the determined location in the image contour” have a limiting effect in claim 2 in view of the contingent limitation of claim 2?—via MPEP 2143.03 All Claim Limitations Must Be Considered [R-01.2024], 4th para:
The following types of claim language may raise a question as to its limiting effect (this list is not exhaustive):
• preamble (MPEP § 2111.02);
• clauses such as "adapted to," adapted for," "wherein," and "whereby" (MPEP § 2111.04, subsection I);
• contingent limitations (MPEP § 2111.04, subsection II);
• printed matter (MPEP § 2111.05); and
• functional language associated with a claim term (MPEP § 2181).
17 mark: something serving as an indication of position, as a landmark. (Dictionary.com)
18 The crossed out text (MPEP 2143.03 All Claim Limitations Must Be Considered [R-01.2024], 3rd para:
As a general matter, the grammar (for example form) and ordinary meaning of terms (“and’) as understood by one having ordinary skill in the art used in a claim will dictate whether, and to what extent, the language limits the claim scope. Language (“and” of claim 3’s “a lesion block and a non-lesion block”) that suggests or makes a feature or step optional but does not require that feature or step does not limit the scope of a claim under the broadest reasonable claim interpretation (see applicant’s disclosure last page, last paragraph regarding “scope” and “variations” [i.e., an alternative form of something] thereof). In addition, when a claim requires selection of an element from a list of alternatives (claim 3’s “a lesion block and a non-lesion block”), the prior art teaches the element if one of the alternatives is taught by the prior art. See, e.g., Fresenius USA, Inc. v. Baxter Int’l, Inc., 582 F.3d 1288, 1298, 92 USPQ2d 1163, 1171 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
19 Applicant’s disclosure, page 12,13:
--It can be understood by those skilled m the art that all or part of the processes in the methods of the above embodiments can be completed by using a computer program to instruct related hardware, such a program may be stored in a computer-readable storage medium, and when executed, the program can include the processes of the above method embodiments The storage medium may be a magnetic disk, an optical disk, a Read-Only Memory (ROM), a Random Access Memory (RAM), a Flash Memory, a Hard Disk Drive (HDD) or a Solid-State Drive (SSD), etc , The storage medium may also comprise a combination of the above kinds of memories.—wherein may is defined: (used to express contingency, especially in clauses indicating condition, concession, purpose, result, etc.), wherein contingency is defined: a contingent event; a chance, accident, or possibility conditional on something uncertain, wherein contingent is defined: dependent for existence, occurrence, character, etc., on something not yet certain; conditional (often followed by on orupon ). .
20 BROAD CLAIM LANGUAGE: match (matching) VERB (gerund) (USED WITHOUT OBJECT): to correspond; be of corresponding size, shape, color, pattern, etc., wherein etc. is defined: and others; and so forth; and so on (used to indicate that more of the same sort or class might have been mentioned, but for brevity have been omitted), where so is defined: likewise or correspondingly; also; too.
21 The crossed out text (MPEP 2143.03 All Claim Limitations Must Be Considered [R-01.2024], 3rd para:
As a general matter, the grammar (for example form) and ordinary meaning of terms (“and’) as understood by one having ordinary skill in the art used in a claim will dictate whether, and to what extent, the language limits the claim scope. Language (“and” of claim 6’s “registering and fusing the RGBD image and the non-visible light image”) that suggests or makes a feature or step optional but does not require that feature or step does not limit the scope of a claim under the broadest reasonable claim interpretation (see applicant’s disclosure last page, last paragraph regarding “scope” and “variations” [i.e., an alternative form of something] thereof). In addition, when a claim requires selection of an element from a list of alternatives (claim 6’s “registering and fusing the RGBD image and the non-visible light image”), the prior art teaches the element if one of the alternatives is taught by the prior art. See, e.g., Fresenius USA, Inc. v. Baxter Int’l, Inc., 582 F.3d 1288, 1298, 92 USPQ2d 1163, 1171 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
22 (italics) represent claim limitations already taught
23 ellipses (…) represent claim limitations already taught
24 The crossed out text (stereo) “does not limit the scope of a claim under the broadest reasonable claim interpretation” via MPEP 2143.03 All Claim Limitations Must Be Considered [R-01.2024], 3rd para:
As a general matter, the grammar (e.g., coordinate adjectives, wherein coordinate is defined: Grammar. of the same rank in grammatical construction, as Jack and Jill in the phrase Jack and Jill, or got up and shook hands in the sentence He got up and shook hands.) and ordinary meaning of terms as understood by one having ordinary skill in the art used in a claim will dictate whether, and to what extent, the language limits the claim scope. Language (“binocular stereo”) that suggests or makes a feature or step optional (“binocular stereo” are coordinate adjectives that coordinate with each other and independently modify “matching”: as in: Stereo matching AND binocular matching “went up the hill, To fetch a pail of water” [Dictionary.com: CULTURAL]) but does not require that feature or step does not limit the scope of a claim under the broadest reasonable claim interpretation. In addition, when a claim requires selection of an element from a list of alternatives (stereo matching AND binocular matching), the prior art teaches the element if one of the alternatives is taught by the prior art. See, e.g., Fresenius USA, Inc. v. Baxter Int’l, Inc., 582 F.3d 1288, 1298, 92 USPQ2d 1163, 1171 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
25 BROAD CLAIM LANGUAGE: match VERB/ matching GERUND (USED WITHOUT OBJECT): to correspond; be of corresponding size, shape, color, pattern, etc., wherein etc. is defined: and others; and so forth; and so on (used to indicate that more of the same sort or class might have been mentioned, but for brevity have been omitted), where so is defined: likewise or correspondingly; also; too.
26 (italics) represent claim limitations already taught
27 ellipses (…) represent claim limitations already taught
28 The crossed out text (stereo) “does not limit the scope of a claim under the broadest reasonable claim interpretation” via MPEP 2143.03 All Claim Limitations Must Be Considered [R-01.2024], 3rd para:
As a general matter, the grammar (e.g., coordinate adjectives, wherein coordinate is defined: Grammar. of the same rank in grammatical construction, as Jack and Jill in the phrase Jack and Jill, or got up and shook hands in the sentence He got up and shook hands.) and ordinary meaning of terms as understood by one having ordinary skill in the art used in a claim will dictate whether, and to what extent, the language limits the claim scope. Language (“stereo vision”) that suggests or makes a feature or step optional (“stereo vision” are coordinate adjectives that coordinate with each other and independently modify/describe “matching”: as in: Stereo matching AND vision matching “went up the hill, To fetch a pail of water” [Dictionary.com: CULTURAL]) but does not require that feature or step does not limit the scope of a claim under the broadest reasonable claim interpretation. In addition, when a claim requires selection of an element from a list of alternatives (stereo matching AND vision matching), the prior art teaches the element if one of the alternatives is taught by the prior art. See, e.g., Fresenius USA, Inc. v. Baxter Int’l, Inc., 582 F.3d 1288, 1298, 92 USPQ2d 1163, 1171 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
29 BROAD CLAIM LANGUAGE: match VERB/ matching GERUND (USED WITHOUT OBJECT): to correspond; be of corresponding size, shape, color, pattern, etc., wherein etc. is defined: and others; and so forth; and so on (used to indicate that more of the same sort or class might have been mentioned, but for brevity have been omitted), where so is defined: likewise or correspondingly; also; too.
30 quality: character with respect to fineness, or grade of excellence, wherein fineness is defined: the state or quality of being fine, wherein fine is defined: choice, excellent, or admirable, wherein choice is defined: carefully selected. (Dictionary.com)
31 The crossed out text (“the selected visible light image and”) “does not limit the scope of a claim under the broadest reasonable claim interpretation” via MPEP 2143.03 All Claim Limitations Must Be Considered [R-01.2024], 3rd para:
As a general matter, the grammar (for example form) and ordinary meaning of terms (“and’) as understood by one having ordinary skill in the art used in a claim will dictate whether, and to what extent, the language limits the claim scope. Language (“and” of claim 7’s “the selected visible light image and the corresponding depth image”) that suggests or makes a feature or step optional but does not require that feature or step does not limit the scope of a claim under the broadest reasonable claim interpretation (see applicant’s disclosure last page, last paragraph regarding “scope” and “variations” [i.e., an alternative form of something] thereof). In addition, when a claim requires selection of an element from a list of alternatives (claim 7’s “the selected visible light image and the corresponding depth image”), the prior art teaches the element if one of the alternatives is taught by the prior art. See, e.g., Fresenius USA, Inc. v. Baxter Int’l, Inc., 582 F.3d 1288, 1298, 92 USPQ2d 1163, 1171 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
32 The crossed out text (“MPEP 2143.03 All Claim Limitations Must Be Considered [R-01.2024], 3rd para:
As a general matter, the grammar (for example form) and ordinary meaning of terms (“and’) as understood by one having ordinary skill in the art used in a claim will dictate whether, and to what extent, the language limits the claim scope. Language (“and” of claim 7’s “distortion correction and stereo paired epipolar rectification”) that suggests or makes a feature or step optional but does not require that feature or step does not limit the scope of a claim under the broadest reasonable claim interpretation (see applicant’s disclosure last page, last paragraph regarding “scope” and “variations” [i.e., an alternative form of something] thereof). In addition, when a claim requires selection of an element from a list of alternatives (claim 7’s “distortion correction and stereo paired epipolar rectification”), the prior art teaches the element if one of the alternatives is taught by the prior art. See, e.g., Fresenius USA, Inc. v. Baxter Int’l, Inc., 582 F.3d 1288, 1298, 92 USPQ2d 1163, 1171 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
33 epi-: a prefix occurring in loanwords from Greek, where it meant “upon,” “on,” “over,” “near,” “at,” “before,” “after” (epicedium; epidermis; epigene; epitome ); on this model, used in the formation of new compound words (epicardium; epinephrine ). (Dictionary.com)
34 polar: central; pivotal (Dictionary.com)
35 epi-polar: “ ‘on’ ”-“central” (Dictionary.com)
36 The crossed out text (“MPEP 2143.03 All Claim Limitations Must Be Considered [R-01.2024], 3rd para:
As a general matter, the grammar (e.g., coordinate adjectives, wherein coordinate is defined: Grammar. of the same rank in grammatical construction, as Jack and Jill in the phrase Jack and Jill, or got up and shook hands in the sentence He got up and shook hands.) and ordinary meaning of terms as understood by one having ordinary skill in the art used in a claim will dictate whether, and to what extent, the language limits the claim scope. Language (“stereo paired epipolar”) that suggests or makes a feature or step optional (“stereo paired epipolar” are coordinate adjectives that coordinate with each other and independently modify/describe “rectification”: as in: Stereo-paired rectification AND epipolar rectification “went up the hill, To fetch a pail of water” [Dictionary.com: CULTURAL]) but does not require that feature or step does not limit the scope of a claim under the broadest reasonable claim interpretation. In addition, when a claim requires selection of an element from a list of alternatives (Stereo-paired rectification AND epipolar rectification), the prior art teaches the element if one of the alternatives is taught by the prior art. See, e.g., Fresenius USA, Inc. v. Baxter Int’l, Inc., 582 F.3d 1288, 1298, 92 USPQ2d 1163, 1171 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
37 The crossed out text (“MPEP 2143.03 All Claim Limitations Must Be Considered [R-01.2024], 3rd para:
As a general matter, the grammar (for example form) and ordinary meaning of terms (“and’) as understood by one having ordinary skill in the art used in a claim will dictate whether, and to what extent, the language limits the claim scope. Language (“and” of claim 7’s “distortion correction and stereo paired epipolar rectification”) that suggests or makes a feature or step optional but does not require that feature or step does not limit the scope of a claim under the broadest reasonable claim interpretation (see applicant’s disclosure last page, last paragraph regarding “scope” and “variations” [i.e., an alternative form of something] thereof). In addition, when a claim requires selection of an element from a list of alternatives (claim 7’s “distortion correction and stereo paired epipolar rectification”), the prior art teaches the element if one of the alternatives is taught by the prior art. See, e.g., Fresenius USA, Inc. v. Baxter Int’l, Inc., 582 F.3d 1288, 1298, 92 USPQ2d 1163, 1171 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
38 epi-: a prefix occurring in loanwords from Greek, where it meant “upon,” “on,” “over,” “near,” “at,” “before,” “after” (epicedium; epidermis; epigene; epitome ); on this model, used in the formation of new compound words (epicardium; epinephrine ). (Dictionary.com)
39 polar: central; pivotal (Dictionary.com)
40 epi-polar: “ ‘on’ ”-“central” (Dictionary.com)
41 The crossed out text (“MPEP 2143.03 All Claim Limitations Must Be Considered [R-01.2024], 3rd para:
As a general matter, the grammar (e.g., coordinate adjectives, wherein coordinate is defined: Grammar. of the same rank in grammatical construction, as Jack and Jill in the phrase Jack and Jill, or got up and shook hands in the sentence He got up and shook hands.) and ordinary meaning of terms as understood by one having ordinary skill in the art used in a claim will dictate whether, and to what extent, the language limits the claim scope. Language (“stereo paired epipolar”) that suggests or makes a feature or step optional (“stereo paired epipolar” are coordinate adjectives that coordinate with each other and independently modify/describe “rectification”: as in: Stereo-paired rectification AND epipolar rectification “went up the hill, To fetch a pail of water” [Dictionary.com: CULTURAL]) but does not require that feature or step does not limit the scope of a claim under the broadest reasonable claim interpretation. In addition, when a claim requires selection of an element from a list of alternatives (Stereo-paired rectification AND epipolar rectification), the prior art teaches the element if one of the alternatives is taught by the prior art. See, e.g., Fresenius USA, Inc. v. Baxter Int’l, Inc., 582 F.3d 1288, 1298, 92 USPQ2d 1163, 1171 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
42 binocular: Relating to or involving both eyes at once, as in binocular vision, wherein binocular vision is defined:
Vision that incorporates images from two eyes simultaneously. The slight differences between the two images—seen from slightly different positions—make it possible to perceive distances between objects in what is known as depth perception.
Also called stereoscopic vision (Dictionary.com)
43 Due to claim 8’s last “superposing” limitation, claim 8 “does…require” claim 8’s “the non-visible light image” via MPEP 2143.03 All Claim Limitations Must Be Considered [R-01.2024], 3rd para:
As a general matter, the grammar (for example form) and ordinary meaning of terms (“and’) as understood by one having ordinary skill in the art used in a claim will dictate whether, and to what extent, the language limits the claim scope. Language (“and” of claim 8’s “the RGBD image and the non-visible light image”) that suggests or makes a feature or step optional but does not require that feature or step does not limit the scope of a claim under the broadest reasonable claim interpretation (see applicant’s disclosure last page, last paragraph regarding “scope” and “variations” [i.e., an alternative form of something] thereof). In addition, when a claim requires selection of an element from a list of alternatives, the prior art teaches the element if one of the alternatives is taught by the prior art. See, e.g., Fresenius USA, Inc. v. Baxter Int’l, Inc., 582 F.3d 1288, 1298, 92 USPQ2d 1163, 1171 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
44 (italics) represent claim limitations already taught
45 ellipses (…) represent claim limitations already taught
46 offset: something that counterbalances, counteracts, or compensates for something else; compensating equivalent. (Dictionary.com)
47 correct: to counteract the operation or effect of (something hurtful or undesirable). (Dictionary.com)
48 (italics) represent claim limitations already taught
49 ellipses (…) represent claim limitations already taught
50 MPEP 2143 Examples of Basic Requirements of a Prima Facie Case of Obviousness [R-01.2024], 3rd para:
--"[T]he analysis that "should be made explicit" refers not to the teachings in the prior art of a motivation to combine, but to the court’s analysis. . . . Under the flexible inquiry set forth by the Supreme Court, the district court therefore erred by failing to take account of ‘the inferences and creative steps,’ or even routine steps, that an inventor would employ and by failing to find a motivation to combine related pieces from the prior art." Ball Aerosol, 555 F.3d at 993, 89 USPQ2d at 1877.--
51 optical (Optical Coherence Tomography): of or relating to sight or vision; visual. (Dictionary.com)
52 fluorescence: the emission of radiation, especially of visible light, by a substance during exposure to external radiation, as light or x-rays. (Dictionary.com)
Prosecution Insights