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 Objections
Claim 1 and 4-7 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claims 1 and 4, “imaging processing” should be “image processing”
Claims 4 and 6 cite acronym SOM without defining the acronym. For examination purposes, SOM is defined as System On Module
Claims 5 and 7 cite acronym FOV without defining the acronym. For examination purposes, FOV is defined as field of view.
In claim 5, “to produce images with a same FOVs” should be “to produce images with a same FOV”
In claim 7, “field of view indicator based on region of interest ROI” should be “field of view indicator based on region of interest (ROI)”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“multispectral illumination design” and “multispectral sensing design” in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cross (US20190216326A1) in view of Toth (US20220224844A1).
Regarding claim 1, Cross teaches a multispectral imaging system addon to a mobile device ([0061], [0071], [0128]), the system comprising: a multispectral illumination design that emits light of N different bands or ranges of wavelengths from 300nm to 1000nm ([0067], [0072]); a multispectral sensing design (camera 32) that images reflected/emission light of N different bands or ranges of wavelengths from 300nm to 1000nm ([0071], [0090]); and hardware ([0078]-[0079]) and software adaptors that connect to a mobile device ([0089]) such that the mobile device is used for imaging processing, storage, display, and internet connectivity ([0087], [0091], [0099]), fails to disclose bands or ranges of wavelengths from 300nm to 1000nm.
Toth, which relates to multispectral images and is thus from the same field of endeavor as Cross, teaches bands or ranges of wavelengths from 300nm to 1000nm ([0056] the UV encompasses wavelengths from approximately 100-400 nm, the visible spectrum from approximately 400-700 nm, and IR spectrum 700-1000).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Cross by incorporating bands or ranges of wavelengths from 300nm to 1000nm in order to enable UV-excited tissue autofluorescence imaging not available from visible-NIR imaging alone.
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cross (US20190216326A1) in view of Toth (US20220224844A1), and further in view of McKee (US20140312247A1).
Regarding claim 2, Cross, when modified by Toth, teaches the system of Claim 1, wherein the mobile device includes a white light emitting diode (LED) that provides one of the multispectral illumination sources and a visible camera that provides one of the multispectral sensing options (Cross : [0071]), but fails to disclose wherein the mobile device includes a white light emitting diode (LED) that provides one of the multispectral illumination sources.
However, McKee, which relates to multispectral images and is thus from the same field of endeavor as Cross, teaches an imager on a mobile device, wherein the mobile device includes a white light emitting diode (LED) that provides one of the multispectral illumination sources ([0019]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Cross by incorporating wherein the mobile device includes a white light emitting diode (LED) that provides one of the multispectral illumination sources as an alternative source capable of reducing the system cost.
Regarding claim 3, Cross, when modified by Toth, teaches the system of Claim 1, wherein a custom software application is deployed on the mobile device to control illumination sources, cameras, acquire, process and display multispectral images (Cross: [0005], [0087], claim 1, fig. 1).
Claims 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cross (US20190216326A1) in view of Toth (US20220224844A1), and further in view of Horstmeyer (US 20200285037 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Cross teaches a multispectral imaging system that performs visible imaging, Laser Speckle Imaging (LSI) and Oxygen Saturation Imaging (SpO2) (Abstract, [0067]), the system comprising: a multispectral illumination module that emits light of N different bands or ranges of wavelengths from 300nm to 1000nm using multiple LEDs and/or lasers ([0067], [0072]); a multispectral sensing module (camera) that images reflected/emission light of the N different bands or ranges of wavelengths from 300nm to 1000nm using multiple cameras ([0071], [0090]: Cross only uses one camera); hardware and software adaptors that connect with a SOM (smartphone) ([0071], [0089]) to use the SOM for imaging processing, storage, display, and internet connectivity ([0087], [0091], [0099]), but fails to disclose bands or ranges of wavelengths from 300nm to 1000nm and multiple cameras.
Toth, from the same field of endeavor, teaches bands or ranges of wavelengths from 300nm to 1000nm ([0056] the UV encompasses wavelengths from approximately 100-400 nm, the visible spectrum from approximately 400-700 nm, and IR spectrum 700-1000).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Cross by incorporating bands or ranges of wavelengths from 300nm to 1000nm in order to enable UV-excited tissue autofluorescence imaging not available from visible-NIR imaging alone.
Cross, when modified by Toth, fails to disclose using multiple cameras.
However, using multiple cameras in multispectral imaging is well known in the art as disclosed by Horstmeyer (Abstract, [0037]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Cross by incorporating using multiple cameras in order to offer a high resolution over a large FOV (Horstmeyer: [0002]).
Regarding claim 5, Cross, when modified by Toth and Horstmeyer, teaches the system of Claim 4, wherein multiple cameras are temporally synchronized (Horstmeyer: single snapshot) (Abstract) to produce images acquired at the same time (Horstmeyer: Abstract, [0013]) and spatially aligned to produce images with a same FOVs (Horstmeyer: [0039], [0044]).
Regarding claim 6, Cross, when modified by Toth and Horstmeyer, teaches the system of Claim 4, wherein a software application is deployed on the SOM to control illumination sources, cameras, acquire, process and display multispectral images (Cross: [0087], [0091], [0099]).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adiri (US20220217267A1) in view of Barbier (US20180356525A1) and further in view of Nasiri (US20100214216A1).
Regarding claim 7, Adiri teaches a pre-imaging design to locate a FOV on a target, ensure correct target distance and reduce device motion artifact, the design comprising:; a visually guided device motion indicator and a visually guided field of view indicator based on region of interest ROI ([0034]] displaying, on the mobile device, an indication to correct an actual position of the wound in the video [0240],[0246]), but fails to disclose a visually guided distance indicator based on Time-of-Flight (ToF) ranging sensor; a visually guided device motion indicator based on 6-Axis MEMS Motion Sensors.
However, Barbier, which relates to sensor-guided handheld mobile image capture as Adiri, teaches a visually guided distance indicator based on Time-of-Flight (ToF) ranging sensor ([0004]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Adiri by incorporating a visually guided distance indicator based on Time-of-Flight (ToF) ranging sensor ensuring consistent image geometry for assessment.
Adiri, when modified by Barbier, fails to disclose a visually guided device motion indicator based on 6-Axis MEMS Motion Sensors.
However, Nasiri, which relates to sensor-guided handheld mobile image capture as Adiri, teaches a visually guided device motion indicator based on 6-Axis MEMS Motion Sensors ([0058]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Adiri by incorporating a visually guided device motion indicator based on 6-Axis MEMS Motion Sensors to provide correct image geometry.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMED DOUMBIA whose telephone number is (571)272-8266. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:00 PM ET.
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, Michelle Iacoletti can be reached at 571-272-3995. 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.
/MOHAMED DOUMBIA/ Examiner, Art Unit 2877
/MICHELLE M IACOLETTI/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights