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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on February 20, 2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings filed on November 04, 2024 are accepted.
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.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 of the subject matter eligibility test (see MPEP 2106.03).
Claims 1-15 are directed to a “method” which describes one of the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter, i.e., a process.
Step 2A of the subject matter eligibility test (see MPEP 2106.04).
Prong One:
Claim 1 recites (“sets forth” or “describes”) the abstract idea of “mathematical concepts” (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2).I.), and/or “a mental process” (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2).III.), substantially as follows: converting the scan of the three-dimensional topology of the skin anomaly into a three-dimensional model of the skin anomaly, the three-dimensional model having characteristics and dimensions matching the three-dimensional topology; receiving, on the three-dimensional model, an input of at least a start point and an end point, the start point and the end point associated with at least one dimension of the three-dimensional model of the skin anomaly; and automatically calculating, based on the input of at least the start point and the end point, a dimension of the skin anomaly, the dimension selected from the group consisting of a length, a width, a depth, a perimeter, a surface area, and a volume.
To covert the scan image into a model requires only mathematical measurement on the dimension of the region of interest. To set a start point and an end point requires only a marking that is a mental step. To calculate based on the start point and the end point the dimension of the region of interest the various dimensions as recited requires only mathematical operation. The above steps, depending on the complexity, may be performed mentally, with a pen and paper, or with a generic computational device. Therefore, each of the above steps are grouped as mathematical concepts or mental processes, or both, hence an abstract idea.
Prong Two: Claim 1 does not include additional elements that integrate the mental process into a practical application.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recites (1) additional steps of receiving a scan of a three-dimensional topology of a skin anomaly, (2) a computing device and a display device in communication with the computing device, (3) displaying the three-dimensional model.
The steps in (1) represent merely data gathering or a pre-solution activity that is necessary for use of the recited judicial exception and are recited at a high level of generality.
The step in (2) represents merely conventional tools for performing steps (1) and (3). See below Step IIB for further details.
The step in (3) represents merely data output or a post-solution activity and is recited at a high level of generality.
As a whole, the additional elements merely serve to gather and feed information to the abstract idea and to output a notification based on the abstract idea, while generically implementing it on conventionally used tools. There is no practical application because the abstract idea is not applied, relied on, or used in a meaningful way. No improvement to the technology is evident, and the calculated dimension of the skin anomaly is not outputted in any way such that a practical benefit is realized. Therefore, the additional elements, alone or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B of the subject matter eligibility test (see MPEP 2106.05).
Claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the claims recite additional steps of (1) additional steps of receiving a scan of a three-dimensional topology of a skin anomaly, (2) a computing device and a display device in communication with the computing device, (3) displaying the three-dimensional model. The steps (1) and (3) represent mere data gathering, data outputting or pre/post/extra-solution activities that are necessary for use of the recited judicial exception and are recited at a high level of generality and are performed by tools o.
Accordingly, these additional steps amount to no more than insignificant conventional extra-solution activity. Mere insignificant conventional extra-solution activity cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims hence are not patent eligible.
Dependent Claims
The following dependent claims merely further define the abstract idea and are, therefore, directed to an abstract idea for similar reasons:
Further describing the dimensions being calculated (claim 2)
Further 3D model (claim 4)
Further calculating a difference in dimensions (claim 5)
Further simulated model based on the differences in dimensions that is a mathematical operation (claims 6 and 10)
Further describe the 3D models (claim 7)
A machine learning model that may be as simple as a look up table for imaging comparison that can be performed mentally (claims 8-9)
Further mental steps of converting and comparing (claim 11)
Calculating a spatial anchor (claim 15).
The following dependent claims merely further describe the extra-solution activities and therefore, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception or integrate the abstract idea into a practical application for similar reasons:
further scan data (claim 3)
providing a notification that is a post-solution activity (claim 11)
further describe the display (claims 12-13)
further describe the data transmission that is a post-solution activity (claim 14).
Taken alone and in combination, the additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application at least because the abstract idea is not applied, relied on, or used in a meaningful way. They also do not add anything significantly more than the abstract idea. Their collective functions merely provide computer/electronic implementation and processing, and no additional elements beyond those of the abstract idea. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer, output device, improves technology other than the technical field of the claimed invention, etc. Therefore, the claims are rejected as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 4 and 11 recite “converting, via a computing device, a scan of the three-dimensional topology of the skin anomaly into a three-dimensional model of the skin anomaly”; and “converting, via a computing device, the second scan of the three-dimensional topology of the skin anomaly into a second three-dimensional model of the skin anomaly”.
The above identified limitations are computer/processor-implemented functional claim limitations as it is directed to be performed via a computing device for converting scan data into a model. Yet the specification does not disclose the computer and the algorithm (e.g., the necessary steps and/or flowcharts) that perform the claimed functions, i.e., how does a processor convert the scan into a model, and what is the model, in sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor possessed the claimed subject matter at the time of filing. In the specification, these claim languages are disclosed in [0012], [0016] and [0018] without disclosing further details. It is not enough to disclose that one skilled in the art could write a program to achieve the claimed function because the specification must explain how the inventor intends to achieve the claimed function to satisfy the written description requirement. See, e.g., Vasudevan Software, Inc. v. MicroStrategy, Inc., 782 F.3d 671, 681-683, 114 USPQ2d 1349, 1356, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2015). As the specification does not provide a disclosure of the computer and algorithm in sufficient detail to demonstrate to one of ordinary skill in the art that the inventor possessed the invention, these claims are rejected for lack of written description. For more information regarding the written description requirement, see MPEP §§ 2161, 2162-2163.07(b).
The dependent claims of the above rejected claims are rejected due to their dependency.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 10 is 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 10 recites “the differences” in line 1 that lacks proper antecedent basis. Since neither claim 1 nor claim 9 recites any feature associated with the “differences in dimensions”, it is unclear how claim 10 links to claims 1 and/or 9 and how it further limits the scope of claims 1 and/or 9.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 1-5 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Crawford et al., US 2021/0104043 A1, hereinafter Crawford.
Claim 1. Crawford teaches in FIG.1 a method of skin anomaly assessment, measurement ([0044]: skin abnormality monitoring system 10), and monitoring comprising the steps of:
receiving, at a computing device, a scan of a three-dimensional topology of a skin anomaly ([0045]: FIG.1: an image capture device 102, such as a tablet or mobile device used to capture photos or images of the patient’s skin);
converting, via the computing device, the scan of the three-dimensional topology of the skin anomaly into a three-dimensional model of the skin anomaly ([0048]: step 203a, the skin abnormality monitoring system 100 utilizes deep neural network models optimized to run on mobile devices to automatically assess an screen patient images prior to clinician review; [0077]: the image data is processed separately by machine learning systems called upon by the processors to classify keypoints and identify body landmarks; and [0102]: In FIGS.18A and 18B, landmark keypoints are to be generated by a proprietary polar coordinate based 3-dimensional curve matching algorithm. In the method 1800A, the skin mask contours are obtained and the polar coordinates are determined) – the skin mask is the 3D model that is obtained by using landmark keypoints identified on the image data,
the three-dimensional model having characteristics and dimensions matching the three-dimensional topology ([0101]: the contours from the patient’s skin mask in each image is used to generate landmark keypoints which can be matched between image sets; [0102]: In FIGS. 18A and 18B, landmark keypoints are to be generated by a proprietary polar coordinate based 3-dimensional curve matching algorithm…the matches are obtained in step 1080. The landmarks are identified in step 1810 to generate a baseline image 1812; and [0103]: the matches are obtained in step 1822, and the landmarks are identified in step 1824 to generate a follow-up image 1826);
displaying, via a display device in communication with the computing device, the three-dimensional model ([0125]: a user can then manipulate such photo data, query and results of the aforementioned process, and/or receive such photo data on the display of the device. Following the conclusion of property calculation, the final results are stored back in a database for final display to a user of the skin image processing system…the display device can be one or more of a known device, such as a tablet or mobile phone);
receiving, on the three-dimensional model and via the computing device, an input of at least a start point and an end point, the start point and the end point associated with at least one dimension of the three-dimensional model of the skin anomaly ([0102]: In FIGS. 18A and 18B, landmark keypoints are to be generated by a proprietary polar coordinate based 3-dimensional curve matching algorithm…the matches are obtained in step 1080. The landmarks are identified in step 1810 to generate a baseline image 1812; and [0103]: the matches are obtained in step 1822, and the landmarks are identified in step 1824 to generate a follow-up image 1826); and
automatically ([0012]: all or part of the systems and methods described herein may be implemented in a computer system which includes a set of instructions stored on one or more non-transitory machine-readable storage media and/or memory and executable on one or more processing devices) calculating, based on the input of at least the start point and the end point, a dimension of the skin anomaly, the dimension selected from the group consisting of a length, a width, a depth, a perimeter, a surface area, and a volume ([0090]: once all the detections have been assessed for merging, they are put back with the singletons and the properties of the whole set are then processed for skim image properties extraction through the example system and method 1300. Once keypoints are located and classified, geometric properties such as height, width, perimeter and area are computed; [0091]: each point of interest is extracted in step 1302 and then processed to define the color sphere, the width, height, and area properties, and the dominant color; and [0123]: following the subratio calculation, properties are generated for each post in step 228. These properties include, but are not limited to: width, height, area, perimeter, dominant colors, and color sphere).
In regard to the calculating step being performed automatically, it is considered among various common practices that normally requires only ordinary skill in the art and hence are considered routine expedients. Such an alternate configuration is considered merely automating a manual activity, which the court has held normally require only ordinary skill in the art and hence is considered routine expedients. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrive such a configuration through routine experimentation with reasonable expectation of success. In re Venner, 262 F.2d 91, 95, 120 USPQ 193, 194 (CCPA 1958) (Appellant argued that claims to a permanent mold casting apparatus for molding trunk pistons were allowable over the prior art because the claimed invention combined "old permanent-mold structures together with a timer and solenoid which automatically actuates the known pressure valve system to release the inner core after a predetermined time has elapsed." The court held that broadly providing an automatic or mechanical means to replace a manual activity which accomplished the same result is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art.). MPEP 2144.04.III.
Claim 2. Crawford further teaches
automatically calculating, based on a plurality of inputs received on the three-dimensional model and via the computing device, each of the length, the width, the depth, the perimeter, the surface area, and the volume of the skin anomaly ([0091]: each point of interest is extracted in step 1302 and then processed to define the color sphere, the width, height, and area properties, and the dominant color; and [0123]: following the subratio calculation, properties are generated for each post in step 228. These properties include, but are not limited to: width, height, area, perimeter, dominant colors, and color sphere) – the “width” may be generally referred to a width or a length of a geometry. The volume can be derived from the area and the height.
Claim 3. Crawford further teaches that
the scan of the three-dimensional topology of the skin anomaly is a first scan, further comprising the step of receiving, at the computing device, a second scan of the three-dimensional topology of the skin anomaly, the second scan being taken subsequent to the first scan ([0044]: the process of capturing images of the skin continues until an entire region of the patient’s body is acquired).
Claim 4. Crawford further teaches that
the three-dimensional model of the skin anomaly is a first three-dimensional model of the skin anomaly, further comprising the step of converting, via the computing device, the second scan of the three-dimensional topology of the skin anomaly into a second three-dimensional model of the skin anomaly (Claim 1: extracting, via a machine learning system, a first set of information from the image data; extracting, via the machine learning system, a second set of information from the image data; and [0085]: other models include a seven- or eight-level classification (mole, skin, edge, background, fabrics, freckle, and hair). These models provide a starting point for the machine learning model to be integrated with the image process workflow of FIGl.2. Additional model training processes are underway for diagnostic skin lesion classification).
Claim 5. Crawford further teaches
tracking, via the computing device, differences in dimensions between the first three-dimensional model and the second three-dimensional model (Claim 2: extracting a first set of information, extracting a second set of information, determining a plurality of vector representations for each set of information, determining an average vector, calculating a normalized distance metric, identifying any outlier lesion based on the normalized distance) – “identifying outlier based on the normalized distance” is considered “tracking the differences between the models” as claimed.
Claim 14. Crawford further teaches
integrating the three-dimensional model and the automatically calculated dimension of the skin anomaly into an electronic health record of a subject associated with the skin anomaly ([0101]: These landmark keypoints are removed from the set of keypoints representing significant pigmented lesions before being saved to the patient’s database record).
Claim 15. Crawford further teaches
establishing a spatial anchor for the three-dimensional model, wherein the computing device is configured to receive one or more additional measurements from the spatial anchor ([0118]: in order to stabilize matching, the algorithm adds landmarks and/or skin masks to the set of keypoints. Those landmarks cannot be computed using simply the polar coordinates as they depend on the anchor. Machine learning performed in earlier steps determines specific body landmarks (such as shoulders) whose purpose is to aid in the extrapolation of an anchor that is virtually placed in the same location on baseline and follow-up).
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crawford in view of Papazoglou et al., US 2015/0025342 A1, hereinafter Papazoglou.
Claim 6. Crawford teaches all the limitations of claim 5.
Crawford does not teach “generating, via the computing device and based on the differences in dimensions between the first three-dimensional model and the second three-dimensional model, a simulated healing model for the skin anomaly”.
However, in an analogous optical-based skin tissue condition monitoring field of endeavor, Papazoglou teach
generating, via the computing device and based on the differences in dimensions between the first three-dimensional model and the second three-dimensional model, a simulated healing model for the skin anomaly ([0017]: measuring the size of the wound by calculating wound surface area and measuring a healing rate of the wound by calculating the difference between the surface area of the wound at different points in time and dividing the difference by the original surface area of the wound; [0082]: near infrared spectroscopy may be used to gather data suitable to differentiate the rate of normal wound healing from impaired (delayed) healing in an animal model…blood volume was increasing as blood vessel ingrowth progressed. There was also a marked difference in scattering coefficients in the diabetic wound, suggesting a connection to the number of inflammatory cells or correlating to a decreased collagen concentration. The scattering coefficient may also be a function of collagen or blood vessel organization; and [0134]: the inventors identifies common parameters that describe the observed trends and that are representative of the clinical outcomes. In particular, the rate of temporal change of the absorption coefficient at each wavelength as well as the rate of temporal change in hemoglobin concentration can be estimated by fitting the data from each wound to a linear trend line…The slopes of the trend lines were found to correspond to the rates of change in optical properties with time, and have proven useful in quantifying the progress of a healing wound).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the method of Crawford employ such features associated with generating, via the computing device and based on the differences in dimensions between the first three-dimensional model and the second three-dimensional model, a simulated healing model for the skin anomaly as taught in Papazoglou for the advantage of “quantifying the progress of a healing wound”, as suggested in Papazoglou, [0134].
Claim 7. Papazoglou further teaches that
the differences in dimensions between the first three-dimensional model and the second three-dimensional model is selected from the group consisting of the surface area, the perimeter, the length measured along a surface of the skin anomaly, the width measured along the surface of the skin anomaly, and the depth measured along the surface of the skin anomaly ([0017]: measuring the size of the wound by calculating wound surface area and measuring a healing rate of the wound by calculating the difference between the surface area of the wound at different points in time and dividing the difference by the original surface area of the wound).
Claims 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crawford in view of Gurevich et al., US 2021/0251503 A1, hereinafter Gurevich.
Claims 8-10. Crawford teaches all the limitations of claim 3.
Crawford does not teach “pretraining, from a database of skin anomaly healing progression images, a machine learning model on the computing device; and generating, via the computing device and based on the machine learning model, a simulated healing model for the skin anomaly”.
However, in an analogous optical-imaging based skin tissue condition monitoring field of endeavor, Gurevich teach
pretraining, from a database of skin anomaly healing progression images, a machine learning model on the computing device; and generating, via the computing device and based on the machine learning model, a simulated healing model for the skin anomaly ([0021]: the method includes receiving a plurality of subject spatial maps generated as described hereinabove and receiving metadata associated with each subject spatial map. The method includes storing each subject spatial map and its associated clinical data in a record of a database. The method includes using the records of the database as input for a supervised machine learning algorithm for generating a predictive model characterizing the tissue); wherein
the differences in dimensions between the first three-dimensional model and the second three-dimensional model is selected from the group consisting of the surface area, the perimeter, the length measured along a surface of the skin anomaly, the width measured along the surface of the skin anomaly, and the depth measured along the surface of the skin anomaly ([0060]: a non-invasive or minimally invasive procedure includes wound (e.g., chronic wound such as for example pressure ulcers) treatment and/or management. In this regard, for example, a change in the wound over time, such as a change in wound dimensions (e.g., diameter, area), or a change in tissue perfusion in the wound and/or around the peri-wound, may be tracked over time with the application of the methods and systems).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the method of Crawford employ such features associated with pretraining, from a database of skin anomaly healing progression images, a machine learning model on the computing device; and generating, via the computing device and based on the machine learning model, a simulated healing model for the skin anomaly as taught in Gurevich for the advantage of “predicting clinical data associated with the subject time series of fluorescence images of the subject” for “generating a predictive model characterizing the tissue”, as suggested in Gurevich, [0009] and [0021].
Claim 11. Crawford and Gurevich combined teaches all the limitations of claim 9.
Crawford further teaches that
the three-dimensional model of the skin anomaly is a first three-dimensional model of the skin anomaly, further comprising the step of converting, via the computing device, the second scan of the three-dimensional topology of the skin anomaly into a second three-dimensional model of the skin anomaly (Claim 1: extracting, via a machine learning system, a first set of information from the image data; extracting, via the machine learning system, a second set of information from the image data; and [0085]: other models include a seven- or eight-level classification (mole, skin, edge, background, fabrics, freckle, and hair). These models provide a starting point for the machine learning model to be integrated with the image process workflow of FIGl.2. Additional model training processes are underway for diagnostic skin lesion classification);
comparing the second three-dimensional model of the skin anomaly to the simulated healing model for the skin anomaly; and based on a determination that each of the surface area and the perimeter of the second three-dimensional model of the skin anomaly is greater than a surface area and a perimeter of the simulated healing model for the skin anomaly,
generating, via the computing device, an alert, based on a determination that each of the surface area and the perimeter of the second three-dimensional model of the skin anomaly is greater than expected ([0130]: reminders and alerts are sent to users utilizing various means of communications such as email, push notifications, short message service (SMS), and notifications used within the mobile application. Notifications may be automated based on the completion of steps within the skin abnormality monitoring system 100, or may be prompted by system administrators as needed).
Crawford does not teach that the model is compared to the simulated healing model for the skin anomaly.
However, in an analogous optical imaging-based skin tissue condition monitoring field of endeavor, Gurevich teaches that
the model is compared to the simulated healing model for the skin anomaly ([0060]: a non-invasive or minimally invasive procedure includes wound (e.g., chronic wound such as for example pressure ulcers) treatment and/or management. In this regard, for example, a change in the wound over time, such as a change in wound dimensions (e.g., diameter, area), or a change in tissue perfusion in the wound and/or around the peri-wound, may be tracked over time with the application of the methods and systems).
In regard to the feature of “a determination that each of the surface area and the perimeter of the second three-dimensional model of the skin anomaly is greater than a surface area and a perimeter of the simulated healing model for the skin anomaly”, for the purpose of wound healing monitoring, when the surface area from the model is greater than that from the simulated healing model, it indicates that the wound is not healing. As Crawford teaches that a notification is generated when the wound is not healing as expected, and Gurevich teaches that the surface area from the model is compared to the surface area from the healing model for tracking the wound healing status, when Crawford and Gurevich are combined, it teaches the limitation of “ generating a notification based on a determination that each of the surface area and the perimeter of the second three-dimensional model of the skin anomaly is greater than a surface area and a perimeter of the simulated healing model for the skin anomaly”
Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crawford in view of Ferrante et al., US 2022/0122734 A1, hereinafter Ferrante.
Claim 12. Crawford teaches all the limitations of claim 1, including the display device ([0125]: a user can then manipulate such photo data, query and results of the aforementioned process, and/or receive such photo data on the display of the device).
Crawford does not teach a digital overlay component selected from the group consisting of virtual reality, augmented reality, and mixed reality.
However, in an analogous imaging-based skin tissue condition monitoring field of endeavor, Ferrante teaches
a digital overlay component selected from the group consisting of virtual reality, augmented reality, and mixed reality ([0061]: the user interface may be configured to overlay predictions generated by the diagnosis system on locations on the image that are estimated to have the respective health condition; and [0062]: the client device is a headset including a computing device or a smartphone camera fo generating an augmented reality (AR) environment to the user).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the display device of Crawford employ such features associated with displaying a digital overlay component selected from the group consisting of virtual reality, augmented reality, and mixed reality as taught in Ferrante for the advantage of “allowing the user to interact with the diagnosis system to view predictions of health conditions in the input image”, as suggested in Ferrante, [0061].
Claim 13. Crawford teaches all the limitations of claim 1, including displaying the three-dimensional model further comprises displaying ([0125]: a user can then manipulate such photo data, query and results of the aforementioned process, and/or receive such photo data on the display of the device. Following the conclusion of property calculation, the final results are stored back in a database for final display to a user of the skin image processing system…the display device can be one or more of a known device, such as a tablet or mobile phone).
Crawford does not teach that the display is via a plurality of display devices that are remote to each other, the three-dimensional model at different locations, such that the three-dimensional model is simultaneously interactable to a plurality of different users via the digital overlay component.
However, in an analogous imaging-based skin tissue condition monitoring field of endeavor, Ferrante teaches that
the display is via a plurality of display devices that are remote to each other, the three-dimensional model at different locations, such that the three-dimensional model is simultaneously interactable to a plurality of different users via the digital overlay component ([0058]: the diagnosis system generates predictions for the two or more health conditions in the input image by applying the set of diagnosis models to the input image. The diagnosis system generates the diagnose for the input image from the predictions and provides the diagnoses as the result to the client device; [0060]: the diagnosis system can generate and display predictions or other indications on the client device. The user of the client device can be a medical expert at a hospital…the user of the client device can be an individual at home or in the office; and [0062]: a typical client device includes the hardware and software needed to connect to the network (e.g., via WiFi and/or 4G or 5G or other wireless telecommunication standards).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the display device of Crawford employ such features associated with displaying via a plurality of display devices that are remote to each other, the three-dimensional model at different locations, such that the three-dimensional model is simultaneously interactable to a plurality of different users via the digital overlay component as taught in Ferrante for the advantage of “allowing the user to interact with the diagnosis system to view predictions of health conditions in the input image”, as suggested in Ferrante, [0061].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YI-SHAN YANG whose telephone number is (408) 918-7628. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-4pm PST.
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, Pascal M Bui-Pho can be reached at 571-272-2714. 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.
/YI-SHAN YANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3798