DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Interpretation
Claims 7, 8 and 14 recite the newly amended limitation of “when the skin is illuminated” which in an interpretation it may be construed as a conditional limitation where the limitations followed by the conditional limitations may not be given a full weight in light of the below decisions as for considering the other case scenario of “when the skin is” NOT being illuminated.
In the recent Ex parte Gopalan decision, the PTAB addressed a claim where all of the features were recited in a conditional manner. A first step of “identifying … an outlier” was performed if “traffic is outside of a prediction interval.” A second step of “identifying” was performed “only when a count of outliers … is greater than or equal to two, and exceeds an anomaly threshold.” These were the only two elements of the independent claim. Thus, if the traffic is never outside Gopalan’s prediction interval, then the steps of the method are never performed.
However, the PTAB distinguished Schulhauser and noted that this construction “would render the entire claim meaningless.” Gopalan at p. 5. The Board went on to state, “Although each of these steps is conditional, they are integrated into one method or path and do not cause the claim to diverge into two methods or paths, as in Schulhauser. Thus, we conclude that the broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 1 requires the performance of both steps…” Id. at p. 6.”
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 3, 7, 9 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 3 and 9 recite the limitation of “measuring the ambient temperature” which is not clear ambient temperature of what.
Claims 7 and 14 recite the limitation of “comparing the first reflected radiation spectrum to the second reflected radiation spectrum” which is not clear what is being compared. In other words, it is not clear if the wavelengths are compared or the received intensities of the radiations; or something totally different.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 5-8 and 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dacosta (US20200104998A1).
Regarding claim 1, Dacosta teaches an arrangement for skin characterization, wherein the arrangement comprises a measurement device, and the measurement device comprises a radiation-emitting device which illuminates a skin region with radiation (paragraphs 0054 and 0067 with Fig.1; imaging device 1 with light sources 5), and the radiation-emitting device comprises:
- one or more first emitters which emit radiation in a UV wavelength range of 200 nm - 400 nm (paragraphs 0067, 0075 and 0089; UV light source, wherein UV is defined as <400nm),
- one or more second emitters which emit radiation in a visible wavelength range of 400 nm - 750nm (paragraphs 0067, 0075 and 00839; visible light source, wherein visible light is defined as 400-700nm),
- one or more third emitters which emit radiation in a near-infrared wavelength range of 750 nm - 900 nm (paragraphs 0067, 0075 and 0089; near-infrared light source, wherein near-infrared is defined as 700 - 900nm),
wherein the device also comprises one or more radiation detectors which measure a reflected radiation spectrum from the skin region as the skin region is illuminated by the radiation- emitting device, and the one or more radiation detectors measure the reflected radiation spectrum in the UV wavelength range, the visible wavelength range and the near- infrared wavelength range (paragraph 0067, 0077, and 0079, with Fig.1; imaging device comprises an image sensor for hyperspectral imaging, which implies light detection over the whole illuminated range).
Regarding claim 2, Dacosta teaches wherein the device comprises a proximity sensor for measuring the distance between the skin region and the radiation-emitting device (“The device may include a method or apparatus 8 to use an optical means (e.g., use of compact miniature laser diodes that emit a collimated light beam) to measure and determine the distance between the imaging device and the object 10” [0067]).
Regarding claims 5 and 11, Dacosta teaches wherein the device comprises a 3D camera for measuring the topography of the skin region (“provide 3D stereoscopic fluorescence imaging that may provide, for example, topography-specific information about bacterial infection of curved surfaces” [0090]).
Regarding claims 6 and 12, Dacosta teaches wherein the device comprises a colour sensor for measuring the colour of the skin region (“color photography to capture the general appearance of a wound under white light illumination” [0042]).
Regarding claims 7 and 14 (as the claims best understood in light of the 35 USC 112 rejections above), Dacosta teaches a method for characterizing skin (paragraphs 0054 and 0067 with Fig.1; imaging device 1 with light sources 5), characterized in that the method comprises the steps of:
- illuminating a first skin region in a UV wavelength range of 200 nm - 400 nm, and with radiation in a visible wavelength range of 400 nm - 750 nm and with radiation in a near- infrared wavelength range of 750 nm - 900 nm, and measuring a first reflected radiation spectrum from the first skin region when the first skin region is illuminated (“excitation/illumination light sources with specific wavelength characteristics in the ultraviolet (UV), visible (VIS), far-red, near infrared (NIR) and infrared (IR) ranges may also be used, and may be composed of a LED array” [0075]),
- illuminating a reference skin region with radiation in the UV wavelength range, the visible wavelength range and the near-infrared wavelength range, and measuring a second reflected radiation spectrum from the reference skin region when the reference skin region is illuminated (“excitation/illumination light sources with specific wavelength characteristics in the ultraviolet (UV), visible (VIS), far-red, near infrared (NIR) and infrared (IR) ranges may also be used, and may be composed of a LED array” [0075]), and
- comparing the first reflected radiation spectrum to the second reflected radiation spectrum (“variation in measurements of wound areas between images taken under WL and FL were compared.” [0113]).
Regarding claim 8, Dacosta teaches wherein the method comprises the step of measuring a distance between the skin region and the radiation-emitting device when the skin is being illuminated (“The device may include a method or apparatus 8 to use an optical means (e.g., use of compact miniature laser diodes that emit a collimated light beam) to measure and determine the distance between the imaging device and the object 10” [0067]) and the step of adjusting the illumination intensity if the measured distance changes (“a method or apparatus 9 (e.g., a pivot) to permit the manipulation and orientation of the excitation light sources 5, 8 so as to manoeuvre these sources 5,8 to change the illumination angle of the light striking the object 10 for varying distances” [0067])
Regarding claim 13, Dacosta teaches wherein the method comprises the step of measuring the temperature of the skin region (“device may be configured to display color images, image maps, or other maps of user selected parameters such as, for example, bacteria location and/or biodistribution, collagen location, location and differentiation between live tissues and dead tissues, differentiation between bacterial species, location and extent of blood, bone, exudate, temperature and wound area/size” [0061]).
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 3-4 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dacosta in view of Potyrailo (US 20200345300).
Regarding claims 3 and 9 (as the claims best understood in light of the 35 USC 112 rejections above), Dacosta teaches all the limitations of the claims except for the device comprises a temperature sensor for measuring the ambient temperature.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Potyrailo teaches A sensor system includes a first sensor to detect environmental conditions of an environment in operational contact with a subject, a second sensor to detect physiological parameters of the subject in operational contact with an asset, and a control unit comprising one or more processors communicatively coupled with the first sensor and the second sensor (abst). Processors of the control unit receive an environmental signal from the environmental sensor indicative of the environmental conditions. Nonlimiting examples of the environmental conditions measured and/or detected by the environmental sensor can include gas, particle matter contaminants (PM), ultraviolet radiation exposure (UV), ambient temperature, ambient pressure, ambient relative humidity, and
sensor acceleration [0030]. Sensors can be near-infrared sensors, ultraviolet sensors,
infrared sensors, visible light sensors, fiber-optic sensors, reflection sensors, multivariable sensors, or single-output sensors. The sensor may generate electrical or optical stimuli in response to measured fluid [0037].
It would have been obvious to an ordinary skilled in the art before the invention was made to modify the method and/or device of the modified combination of reference(s) as outlined above with temperature sensor for measuring the ambient temperature as taught by because of the lack of needed accuracy, existing sensors are problematic to utilize for control of environmental conditions and/or assets that are operated by subjects ([0003] of Dacosta).
Regarding claims 4 and 10, Dacosta teaches all the limitations of the claims except for wherein the device comprises a humidity sensor for measuring the ambient humidity.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Potyrailo teaches A sensor system includes a first sensor to detect environmental conditions of an environment in operational contact with a subject, a second sensor to detect physiological parameters of the subject in operational contact with an asset, and a control unit comprising one or more processors communicatively coupled with the first sensor and the second sensor (abst). Processors of the control unit receive an environmental signal from the environmental sensor indicative of the environmental conditions. Nonlimiting examples of the environmental conditions measured and/or detected by the environmental sensor can include gas, particle matter contaminants (PM), ultraviolet radiation exposure (UV), ambient temperature, ambient pressure, ambient relative humidity, and
sensor acceleration [0030]. Sensors can be near-infrared sensors, ultraviolet sensors,
infrared sensors, visible light sensors, fiber-optic sensors, reflection sensors, multivariable sensors, or single-output sensors. The sensor may generate electrical or optical stimuli in response to measured fluid [0037].
It would have been obvious to an ordinary skilled in the art before the invention was made to modify the method and/or device of the modified combination of reference(s) as outlined above with humidity sensor for measuring the ambient humidity as taught by because of the lack of needed accuracy, existing sensors are problematic to utilize for control of environmental conditions and/or assets that are operated by subjects ([0003] of Dacosta).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SERKAN AKAR whose telephone number is (571)270-5338. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-5pm M-F.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Christopher Koharski can be reached at 571-272 7230. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SERKAN AKAR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3797