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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment of 07/22/2026 has been entered and fully considered by the examiner. Claims 1, 6, 11, 13, 18, 39, 41, 45, 47 and 49 have been amended. Claim 50 has been added. Claims 2, 4, and 19-35 have been canceled. Claims 1, 3, 5-18, and 36-50 are currently pending in the application with claims 1, 18, and 47 being independent.
Information Disclosure Statement
Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) submitted on 07/22/2026 has been entered and fully considered by the examiner.
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.
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 47 and 48 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being anticipated by Dacosta et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2017/0236281) hereinafter “Dacosta” in view of Moore et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2018/0234603) hereinafter “Moore”.
Regarding claim 47, Dacosta discloses a non-transitory computer-readable medium [the memory of the handheld mobile phone (iPhone 4s; see FIG. 6A and [0094]] encoding instructions operable to cause a data processing apparatus [see [0094]; it is inherent that the iphone would have a processor] to perform operations comprising:
Even though Dacosta discloses detection of distance and compensation it, [see [0062] of Dacosta], Dacosta does not expressly disclose based on the one or more environmental parameters, adjust an operation on at least one of: the camera device, and the UV light source, to compensate for varied detection of the fluorescent signals caused by the changes in the one or more environmental parameters; reduce a contribution of the changes in the one or more environmental parameters to varied intensities of the fluorescent signals as detected by the camera device; and based on the compensated fluorescent signals detected by the camera device, generate a compensated fluorescent image for displaying on the screen. Dacosta further fails to disclose that the computing device is arranged in communication with the UV light source and capable of activating the UV light source,
Moore, directed towards fluorescent imaging in ambient light [see abstract of Moore] further discloses based on the one or more environmental parameters, [ambient light intensity is the environmental parameter] adjust an operation on at least one of: the camera device, and the UV light source, to compensate for varied detection of the fluorescent signals caused by the changes in the one or more environmental parameters; [see [0070] and [0181]-[0182] of Moore] reduce a contribution of the changes in the one or more environmental parameters to varied intensities of the fluorescent signals as detected by the camera device; [see [0183] and [[0189] and [0072] of Moore] and based on the compensated fluorescent signals detected by the camera device, generate a compensated fluorescent image for displaying on the screen.[see [0070]-[0071] of Moore]
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill level in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify the teachings of Dacosta further such that the processor is further configured to, based on the one or more environmental parameters, adjust an operation on at least one of: the camera device, and the UV light source, to compensate for varied detection of the fluorescent signals caused by the changes in the one or more environmental parameters; reduce a contribution of the changes in the one or more environmental parameters to varied intensities of the fluorescent signals as detected by the camera device; and based on the compensated fluorescent signals detected by the camera device, generate a compensated fluorescent image for displaying on the screen according to the teachings of Moore in order to allow for imaging the fluorescent images with sufficient intensity in ambient light [see [0003] of Moore]
Regarding claim 48, Dacosta as modified by Moore discloses all the limitations of claim 47 [see rejection of claim 47]
Moore further discloses that the one or more environmental parameters are obtained from at least one of: an ambient light sensor, a temperature sensor, or a distance sensor. [see [0138]; device includes imaging sensor to detect light from the sample resulting from illumination by visible ambient light]; [0146] discloses sensors on plate 302 to detect ambient light intensity directly]
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill level in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify the teachings of Dacosta as modified by Moore further such that the one or more environmental parameters are obtained from at least one of: an ambient light sensor, a temperature sensor, or a distance sensor according to the teachings of Moore in order allow for imaging the fluorescent images with sufficient intensity in ambient light [see [0003] of Moore]
Claims 1, 3, 5-11, 17, 18, 37, 37, 40-46 and 50 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Dacosta et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2017/0236281) hereinafter “Dacosta” in view of Radhakrishnan et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2021/0106231) hereinafter “Radhakrishnan” and Moore et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2018/0234603) hereinafter “Moore”.
Regarding claim 1, Dacosta discloses a system [see abstract of Dacosta], comprising:
an ultraviolet (UV) light source [ultraviolet light souce 5; see FIG. 1 and [0062] of Dacosta] activatable to illuminate a region of a human body using UV light at a predetermined wavelength; and [see [0072] disclosing that the LED array of light source can be turned on to emit light]
a computing device [handheld mobile phone (iPhone 4s; see FIG. 6A and [0094]] to which the UV light source is attachable [see FIG. 6A and [0081]-[0082]; the light source and the CCD sensor are attached to the iphone which houses the processor], the computing device comprising:
a camera device [iphone’s consumer grade mobile phone camera; see FIGs. 6A-B and [0081]-[0082]] configured to detect fluorescent signals emitted from the region of the human body in response to illumination using the UV light at the predetermined wavelength that is below a band of human visual perception, [see [0081]-[0082] of Dacosta]
a screen, [iphone’s LCD touch screen; see FIGS. 6A-6B and [0082]]
a memory device, and [it is inherent that the iphone has a memory; further [0088] discloses the iphone’s camera has a memory card]
one or more processors coupled to the camera device, the screen, and the memory device, [see [0094]; it is inherent that the iphone would have a processor] wherein the one or more processors are configured to:
obtain one or more environmental parameters capable of affecting the fluorescent signals as detected by the camera device; [see [0062]; device includes sensors such as laser diode sensors or rangefinders that can detect distance between the device and the object]
Even though Dacosta discloses detection of distance and compensation it, [see [0062] of Dacosta], Dacosta does not expressly disclose based on the one or more environmental parameters, adjust an operation on at least one of: the camera device, and the UV light source, to compensate for varied detection of the fluorescent signals caused by the changes in the one or more environmental parameters; reduce a contribution of the changes in the one or more environmental parameters to varied intensities of the fluorescent signals as detected by the camera device; and based on the compensated fluorescent signals detected by the camera device, generate a compensated fluorescent image for displaying on the screen. Dacosta further fails to disclose that the computing device is arranged in communication with the UV light source and capable of activating the UV light source,
Moore, directed towards fluorescent imaging in ambient light [see abstract of Moore] further discloses based on the one or more environmental parameters, [ambient light intensity is the environmental parameter] adjust an operation on at least one of: the camera device, and the UV light source, to compensate for varied detection of the fluorescent signals caused by the changes in the one or more environmental parameters; [see [0070] and [0181]-[0182] of Moore] reduce a contribution of the changes in the one or more environmental parameters to varied intensities of the fluorescent signals as detected by the camera device; [see [0183] and [[0189] and [0072] of Moore] and based on the compensated fluorescent signals detected by the camera device, generate a compensated fluorescent image for displaying on the screen.[see [0070]-[0071] of Moore]
Radhakrishnan, directed towards a diagnostic mobile device using imaging [see abstract of Radhakrishnan] further disclose wherein the computing device is arranged in communication with the UV light source and capable of activating the UV light source, [see [0044]; the control unit 122 which is part of the computing device controls the light source]
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill level in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify the teachings of Dacosta further such that the processor is further configured to, based on the one or more environmental parameters, adjust an operation on at least one of: the camera device, and the UV light source, to compensate for varied detection of the fluorescent signals caused by the changes in the one or more environmental parameters; reduce a contribution of the changes in the one or more environmental parameters to varied intensities of the fluorescent signals as detected by the camera device; and based on the compensated fluorescent signals detected by the camera device, generate a compensated fluorescent image for displaying on the screen according to the teachings of Moore in order to allow for imaging the fluorescent images with sufficient intensity in ambient light [see [0003] of Moore]
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill level in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify the teachings of Dacosta further such that the computing device is arranged in communication with the UV light source and capable of activating the UV light source according to the teachings of Radhakrishnan in order to automate the powering of the light source based on the requirement to help in timely treatment and avert any mistakes [see [0002] of Radhakrishnan]
Regarding claim 3, Dacosta as modified by Moore and Radhakrishnan discloses all the limitations of claim 1 [see rejection of claim 1]
Dacosta further discloses that once activated, the UV light source illuminates the region of the human body under ambient light. [see [0075]; the device can be use in a lit environment or room (i.e. ambient light)]
Regarding claim 5, Dacosta as modified by Moore and Radhakrishnan discloses all the limitations of claim 1 [see rejection of claim 1]
Radhakrishnan further discloses that the predetermined wavelength is shorter than 400 nanometers (nm). [see [0083] of Radhakrishnan discloses using wavelengths below 400 such as 340nm, 365nm and 395 nm]
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill level in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify the teachings of Dacosta as modified by Moore and Radhakrishnan further such that the predetermined wavelength is shorter than 400 nanometers (nm) according to the teachings of Radhakrishnan in order to excite the pathogens with Ultraviolet light and detect their presence [see [0030] of Radhakrishana]. Further, it has been held that discovering optimum or workable value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch , 617, F. 2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)
Regarding claim 6, Dacosta as modified by Moore and Radhakrishnan discloses all the limitations of claim 1 [see rejection of claim 5]
Radhakrishnan further discloses that the predetermined wavelength is between 360 nm and 370nm. [see [0083] of Radhakrishnan discloses using wavelengths below 400 such as between 360 nm and 370 nm]
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill level in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify the teachings of Dacosta as modified by Radhakrishnan further such that the predetermined wavelength is between 360nm and 370nm according to the teachings of Radhakrishnan in order to excite the pathogens with Ultraviolet light and detect their presence [see [0030] of Radhakrishnan]. Further, it has been held that discovering optimum or workable value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch , 617, F. 2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)
Regarding claim 7, Dacosta as modified by Moore and Radhakrishnan discloses all the limitations of claim 5 [see rejection of claim 5]
Dacosta further discloses shows bandwidth emission wherein the width of wavelength is 25 nm. [see [0144] disclosing short bandwidths of 25nm]
Radhakrishnan further discloses the predetermined wavelength is characterized by a center wavelength along with a width of wavelength, wherein the center wavelength is shorter than 380 nm [see [0083] of Radhakrishnan discloses using wavelengths below 400 such 365nm]
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill level in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify the teachings of Dacosta as modified by Moore and Radhakrishnan further such that wavelength is characterized by a center wavelength along with a width of wavelength, wherein the center wavelength is shorter than 380 nm according to the teachings of Radhakrishnan in order to excite the pathogens with Ultraviolet light and detect their presence [see [0030] of Radhakrishnan]. Dacosta in view of Moore and Radhakrishnan does not expressly disclose a bandwidth of less than 20nm. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to make the bandwidth less than 20nm since it has been held that discovering optimum or workable value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch , 617, F. 2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)
Regarding claim 8, Dacosta as modified by Moore and Radhakrishnan discloses all the limitations of claim 1 [see rejection of claim 1]
Radhakrishnan further discloses that the UV light source is modulated when illuminating the region of the human body. [see [0049] of Radhakrishnan discloses that the ultraviolet UV light source is pulsed]
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill level in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify the teachings of Dacosta as modified by Moore and Radhakrishnan further such that the UV light source is modulated when illuminating the region of the human body according to the teachings of Radhakrishnan in order to perform fluorescence life time spectroscopy which need a period of darkness to record the fluorescence emission of the bacteria [see [0056] of Radhakrishnan]
Regarding claim 9, Dacosta as modified by Moore and Radhakrishnan discloses all the limitations of claim 8 [see rejection of claim 8]
Radhakrishnan further discloses that the UV light is modulated according to at least one of: a pulse width modulation [see [0049]; the pulsing periods are varied], a pulse intensity modulation, or a frequency modulation.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill level in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify the teachings of Dacosta as modified by Moore and Radhakrishnan further such that the UV light is modulated according to at least one of: a pulse width modulation, a pulse intensity modulation, or a frequency modulation according to the teachings of Radhakrishnan in order to perform fluorescence life time spectroscopy which need a period of darkness to record the fluorescence emission of the bacteria [see [0056] of Radhakrishnan]
Regarding claim 10, Dacosta as modified by Moore and Radhakrishnan discloses all the limitations of claim 1 [see rejection of claim 1]
Radhakrishnan further discloses that the one or more processors are configured to analyze the fluorescent image [see [0073] of Radhakrishnan discloses storing and analyzing the data] by: segmenting at least one region in the fluorescent image with likely bacterial presence [see [0095] of Radhakrishnan disclosing segmenting the image] using a machine learning model to discern characteristic features of bacterial induced fluorescence. [see [0064]-[0066] disclosing using machine learning algorithms to analyze the images]
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill level in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify the teachings of Dacosta as modified by Moore and Radhakrishnan further such that the one or more processors are configured to analyze the fluorescent image by: segmenting at least one region in the fluorescent image with likely bacterial presence using a machine learning model to discern characteristic features of bacterial induced fluorescence according to the teachings of Radhakrishnan in order to automate data analysis of the images and enhance accuracy of specificity of the classification [see [0064] of Radhakrishnan]
Regarding claim 11, Dacosta as modified by Moore and Radhakrishnan discloses all the limitations of claim 1 [see rejection of claim 1]
Radhakrishnan further discloses the one or more processors are configured to: process sequential compensated fluorescent images of the region of the human body using a machine learning model; track a change in the sequential compensated fluorescent images of the region of the human body; and predict a healing trajectory of the region of the human body.[see [0037], [0051], and [0103] and FIG. 24 shows sequential images over 9 days of the wound showing the healing process and bacterial decrease]
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill level in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify the teachings of Dacosta as modified by Moore and Radhakrishnan further such that one or more processors are configured to: process sequential fluorescent images of the region of the human body using a machine learning model; track a change in the sequential fluorescent images of the region of the human body; and predict a healing trajectory of the region of the human body according to the teachings of Radhakrishnan in order to study and monitor the healing process of the wound [see [0037] of Radhakrishnan]
Regarding claim 17, Dacosta as modified by Moore and Radhakrishnan discloses all the limitations of claim 1 [see rejection of claim 1]
Dacosta further discloses that the fluorescent image is a fluorescent image of a wound area of the human body. [see [0085]-[088] of Dacosta]
Regarding claim 18, Dacosta discloses a method performed by one or more computer processors [see [0094]; it is inherent that the iphone would have a processor] coupled to an ultraviolet (UV) light source and a camera device [iphone’s consumer grade mobile phone camera; see FIGs. 6A-B and [0081]-[0082]], the method comprising:
Even though Dacosta discloses detection of distance and compensation it, [see [0062] of Dacosta], Dacosta does not expressly disclose based on the one or more environmental parameters, adjust an operation on at least one of: the camera device, and the UV light source, to compensate for varied detection of the fluorescent signals caused by the changes in the one or more environmental parameters; reduce a contribution of the changes in the one or more environmental parameters to varied intensities of the fluorescent signals as detected by the camera device; and based on the compensated fluorescent signals detected by the camera device, generate a compensated fluorescent image for displaying on the screen. Dacosta further fails to disclose that the computing device is arranged in communication with the UV light source and capable of activating the UV light source,
Moore, directed towards fluorescent imaging in ambient light [see abstract of Moore] further discloses based on the one or more environmental parameters, [ambient light intensity is the environmental parameter] adjust an operation on at least one of: the camera device, and the UV light source, to compensate for varied detection of the fluorescent signals caused by the changes in the one or more environmental parameters; [see [0070] and [0181]-[0182] of Moore] reduce a contribution of the changes in the one or more environmental parameters to varied intensities of the fluorescent signals as detected by the camera device; [see [0183] and [[0189] and [0072] of Moore] and based on the compensated fluorescent signals detected by the camera device, generate a compensated fluorescent image for displaying on the screen.[see [0070]-[0071] of Moore]
Radhakrishnan, directed towards a diagnostic mobile device using imaging [see abstract of Radhakrishnan] further disclose wherein the computing device is arranged in communication with the UV light source and capable of activating the UV light source, [see [0044]; the control unit 122 which is part of the computing device controls the light source]
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill level in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify the teachings of Dacosta further such that the processor is further configured to, based on the one or more environmental parameters, adjust an operation on at least one of: the camera device, and the UV light source, to compensate for varied detection of the fluorescent signals caused by the changes in the one or more environmental parameters; reduce a contribution of the changes in the one or more environmental parameters to varied intensities of the fluorescent signals as detected by the camera device; and based on the compensated fluorescent signals detected by the camera device, generate a compensated fluorescent image for displaying on the screen according to the teachings of Moore in order to allow for imaging the fluorescent images with sufficient intensity in ambient light [see [0003] of Moore]
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill level in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify the teachings of Dacosta further such that the computing device is arranged in communication with the UV light source and capable of activating the UV light source according to the teachings of Radhakrishnan in order to automate the powering of the light source based on the requirement to help in timely treatment and avert any mistakes [see [0002] of Radhakrishnan]
Regarding claim 36, Dacosta further discloses that the UV light source illuminates the region of the human body under ambient light. [see [0075]; the device can be use in a lit environment or room (i.e. ambient light)]
Regarding claim 37, Dacosta as modified by Moore and Radhakrishnan discloses all the limitations of claim 18 [see rejection of claim 18]
Moore further discloses that the one or more environmental parameters are obtained from at least one of: an ambient light sensor, a temperature sensor, or a distance sensor. [see [0138]; device includes imaging sensor to detect light from the sample resulting from illumination by visible ambient light]; [0146] discloses sensors on plate 302 to detect ambient light intensity directly]
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill level in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify the teachings of Dacosta as modified by Moore and Radhakrishnan further such that the one or more environmental parameters are obtained from at least one of: an ambient light sensor, a temperature sensor, or a distance sensor according to the teachings of Moore in order allow for imaging the fluorescent images with sufficient intensity in ambient light [see [0003] of Moore]
Regarding claim 40, Dacosta as modified by Moore and Radhakrishnan discloses all the limitations of claim 18 [see rejection of claim 18]
Radhakrishnan further discloses that the predetermined wavelength is shorter than 400 nanometers (nm). [see [0083] of Radhakrishnan discloses using wavelengths below 400 such as 340nm, 365nm and 395 nm]
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill level in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify the teachings of Dacosta as modified by Moore and Radhakrishnan further such that the predetermined wavelength is shorter than 400 nanometers (nm) according to the teachings of Radhakrishnan in order to excite the pathogens with Ultraviolet light and detect their presence [see [0030] of Radhakrishana]. Further, it has been held that discovering optimum or workable value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch , 617, F. 2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)
Regarding claim 41, Dacosta as modified by Moore and Radhakrishnan discloses all the limitations of claim 40 [see rejection of claim 40]
Radhakrishnan further discloses that the predetermined wavelength is between 360nm and 370 nm [see [0083] of Radhakrishnan discloses using wavelengths below 400 such as between 360nm and 370nm]
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill level in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify the teachings of Dacosta as modified by Moore and Radhakrishnan further such that the predetermined wavelength is between 360nm and 370 nm according to the teachings of Radhakrishnan in order to excite the pathogens with Ultraviolet light and detect their presence [see [0030] of Radhakrishnan]. Further, it has been held that discovering optimum or workable value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch , 617, F. 2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)
Regarding claim 42, Dacosta as modified by Moore and Radhakrishnan discloses all the limitations of claim 40 [see rejection of claim 40]
Dacosta further discloses shows bandwidth emission wherein the width of wavelength is 25 nm. [see [0144] disclosing short bandwidths of 25nm]
Radhakrishnan further discloses the predetermined wavelength is characterized by a center wavelength along with a width of wavelength, wherein the center wavelength is shorter than 380 nm [see [0083] of Radhakrishnan discloses using wavelengths below 400 such 365nm]
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill level in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify the teachings of Dacosta as modified by Moore and Radhakrishnan further such that wavelength is characterized by a center wavelength along with a width of wavelength, wherein the center wavelength is shorter than 380 nm according to the teachings of Radhakrishnan in order to excite the pathogens with Ultraviolet light and detect their presence [see [0030] of Radhakrishnan]. Dacosta in view of Radhakrishnan does not expressy disclose a bandwidth of less than 20nm. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to make the bandwidth less than 20nm since it has been held that discovering optimum or workable value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch , 617, F. 2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)
Regarding claim 43, Dacosta as modified by Moore and Radhakrishnan discloses all the limitations of claim 18 [see rejection of claim 18]
Radhakrishnan further discloses that the UV light source is modulated when illuminating the region of the human body. [see [0049] of Radhakrishnan discloses that the ultraviolet UV light source is pulsed]
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill level in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify the teachings of Dacosta as modified by Radhakrishnan further such that the UV light source is modulated when illuminating the region of the human body according to the teachings of Radhakrishnan in order to perform fluorescence life time spectroscopy which need a period of darkness to record the fluorescence emission of the bacteria [see [0056] of Radhakrishnan]
Regarding claim 44, Dacosta as modified by Moore and Radhakrishnan discloses all the limitations of claim 43 [see rejection of claim 43]
Radhakrishnan further discloses that the UV light is modulated according to at least one of: a pulse width modulation [see [0049]; the pulsing periods are varied], a pulse intensity modulation, or a frequency modulation.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill level in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify the teachings of Dacosta as modified by Moore and Radhakrishnan further such that the UV light is modulated according to at least one of: a pulse width modulation, a pulse intensity modulation, or a frequency modulation according to the teachings of Radhakrishnan in order to perform fluorescence life time spectroscopy which need a period of darkness to record the fluorescence emission of the bacteria [see [0056] of Radhakrishnan]
Regarding claim 45, Dacosta as modified by Moore and Radhakrishnan discloses all the limitations of claim 18 [see rejection of claim 18]
Moore further discloses generating consecutive compensated florescent images based on consecutively detecting the compensated fluorescent signals in response to repeated illumination using the UV light. [see [0282]-[0285] of Moore continuously performs the compensation]
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill level in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify the teachings of Dacosta as modified by Moore and Radhakrishnan further such that generating consecutive compensated florescent images based on consecutively detecting the compensated fluorescent signals in response to repeated illumination using the UV light according to the teachings of Moore in order to allow for imaging the fluorescent images with sufficient intensity in ambient light [see [0003] of Moore]
Regarding claim 46, Dacosta as modified by Moore and Radhakrishnan discloses all the limitations of claim 18 [see rejection of claim 18]
Dacosta further discloses decomposing the fluorescent image into wavelength components; and performing fluorescence spectroscopy analysis using the wavelength components of the fluorescent image. [see [0139]-[0140] of Dacosta]
Regarding claim 50, Dacosta as modified by Moore and Radhakrishnan discloses all the limitations of claim 45 [see rejection of claim 45]
Moore further discloses comparing the consecutive compensated fluorescent images; and assessing changes in the region of the human body over time despite changes in the one or more environmental parameters. [see at least [0207]-[0209] of Moore disclosing normalization of the images allowing for comparison over time of the images in different ambient lighting]
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill level in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify the teachings of Dacosta as modified by Moore further such that it further includes comparing the consecutive compensated fluorescent images; and assessing changes in the region of the human body over time despite changes in the one or more environmental parameters according to the teachings of Moore in order to in order allow for imaging the fluorescent images with sufficient intensity in ambient light over time [see [0003] and [0207] of Moore]
Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Dacosta et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2017/0236281) hereinafter “Dacosta” in view of, Moore et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2018/0234603) hereinafter “Moore”, and Radhakrishnan et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2021/0106231) hereinafter “Radhakrishnan” as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Gurevich (U.S. Publication No. 2024/0212104) hereinafter “Gurevich”.
Regarding claim 12, Dacosta as modified by Moore and Radhakrishnan discloses all the limitations of claim 1 [see rejection of claim 1]
Dacosta as modified by Radhakrishnan does not expressly disclose wherein the one or more processors of the computing device are configured to enhance the fluorescent image.
Gurevich, directed towards processing fluorescent tissue images taken under low light sources including ultraviolet light [see abstract of Gurevich] further discloses wherein the one or more processors of the computing device are configured to enhance the fluorescent image. [see [0050]-[0051] and [0071]-[0077] of Gurevich disclosing enhancement of medical images including fluorescent images ]
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill level in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify the teachings of Dacosta as modified by Moore and Radhakrishnan further such that the one or more processors of the computing device are configured to enhance the fluorescent image according to the teachings of Gurevich in order to increase the image quality of low light images [see [0003] of Gurevich]
Regarding claim 13, Dacosta as modified by Moore, Radhakrishnan and Gurevich discloses all the limitations of claim 12 [see rejection of claim 12]
Gurevich further discloses that the one or more processors of the computing device are configured to: generate Hue values of the fluorescent image; and generate the enhanced compensated fluorescent image based on the Hue values of the compensated fluorescent image. [see [0069]-[0072]; the enhancement is generated based on hue and saturation determination of the image]
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill level in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify the teachings of Dacosta as modified by Moore, Radhakrishnan and Gurevich further such that the one or more processors of the computing device are configured to: generate Hue values of the fluorescent image; and generate the enhanced fluorescent image based on the Hue values of the fluorescent image according to the teachings of Gurevich in order to increase the image quality of low light images [see [0003] of Gurevich]
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Dacosta et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2017/0236281) hereinafter “Dacosta” in view of Moore et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2018/0234603) hereinafter “Moore”, Radhakrishnan et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2021/0106231) hereinafter “Radhakrishnan” and Gurevich (U.S. Publication No. 2024/0212104) hereinafter “Gurevich” as applied to claim 12 above and further in view of Ozcan et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2019/0333199) hereinafter “Ozcan”.
Regarding claim 14, Dacosta as modified by Moore, Radhakrishnan and Gurevich discloses all the limitations of claim 12 [see rejection of claim 12]
Dacosta as modified by Radhakrishnan and Gurevich further discloses that the one or more processors of the computing device are configured to: process the fluorescent image using machine learning model trained on a dataset of fluorescent images to generate the enhanced fluorescent image. [see [0064]-[0066] disclosing that the image processing and analysis is done using machine learning algorithms]
Dacosta as modified by Radhakrishnan and Gurevich does not disclose that the machine learning is a Generative Adversarial Network (GAN)
Ozcan, directed towards image enhancement deep learning methods [see abstract of Ozcan] further discloses that the machine learning is a Generative Adversarial Network (GAN). [see at least [0072] disclosing using a trained GAM model to process and analyze the medical images]
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill level in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify the teachings of Dacosta as modified by Moore, Radhakrishnan and Gurevich further such that the machine learning model used for image enhancement is a trained Generative Adversarial Network (GAN) according to the teachings of Ozcan since doing so would have been substituting one type of machine learning algorithm with another equivalent algorithm and would have been obvious to try by an ordinarily skilled in the art. (KSR Rationale B)
Claims 15, 16, and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Dacosta et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2017/0236281) hereinafter “Dacosta” in view of Moore et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2018/0234603) hereinafter “Moore” and Radhakrishnan et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2021/0106231) hereinafter “Radhakrishnan” as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Ozcan et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2019/0333199) hereinafter “Ozcan”.
Regarding claim 15, Dacosta as modified by Moore and Radhakrishnan discloses all the limitations of claim 1 [see rejection of claim 1]
Dacosta as modified by Moore and Radhakrishnan do not expressly disclose that the one or more processors of the computing device are configured to process the fluorescent image using a Generative Adversarial Network (GAN) to generate a prediction of at least one future state of the region of the human body under at least one treatment scenario.
Ozcan, directed towards image processing using deep learning methods [see abstract of Ozcan], further discloses that the one or more processors of the computing device are configured to process the fluorescent image using a Generative Adversarial Network (GAN) to generate a prediction of at least one future state of the region of the human body under at least one treatment scenario. [see [0176]-[0177] disclosing prediction of a model using GAN algorithm]
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill level in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify the teachings of Dacosta as modified by Moore and Radhakrishnan further such that the one or more processors of the computing device are configured to process the fluorescent image using a Generative Adversarial Network (GAN) to generate a prediction of at least one future state of the region of the human body under at least one treatment scenario according to the teachings of Ozcan in order to provide analytical or numerical modeling of the light sample interaction [see [0079] of Ozcan]
Regarding claim 16, Dacosta as modified by Moore, Radhakrishnan and Ozcan discloses all the limitations of claim 15 [see rejection of claim 15]
Ozcan further discloses that the one or more processors of the computing device are configured to: provide, based on the at least one predicted future state, a visual simulation of how the region of the human body evolves under the least one treatment scenario. [see [0150]-[0152] of Ozcan]
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill level in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify the teachings of Dacosta as modified by Radhakrishnan further such that the one or more processors of the computing device are configured to: provide, based on the at least one predicted future state, a visual simulation of how the region of the human body evolves under the least one treatment scenario according to the teachings of Ozcan in order to simulate the estimation of the process of healing [see [0003] of Ozcan]
Regarding claim 38, Dacosta as modified by Moore, Radhakrishnan discloses all the limitations of claim 37 [see rejection of claim 37]
Dacosta as modified by Radhakrishnan does not expressly disclose that the fluorescent signals are detected by the camera device when the ambient light sensor detects an ambient signal level below a threshold level.
Ozcan further discloses that the fluorescent signals are detected by the camera device when the ambient light sensor detects an ambient signal level below a threshold level. [see [0164] of Ozcan]
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill level in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify the teachings of Dacosta as modified by Moore and Radhakrishnan further such that the fluorescent signals are detected by the camera device when the ambient light sensor detects an ambient signal level below a threshold level according to the teachings of Ozcan in order to determine a low intensity image and subtract background noise [see [0164] of Ozcan]
Claims 39 and 49 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Dacosta et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2017/0236281) hereinafter “Dacosta” in view of Moore et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2018/0234603) hereinafter “Moore” and Radhakrishnan et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2021/0106231) hereinafter “Radhakrishnan” as applied to claims 1 and 18 above and further in view of Fengler et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2017/0354392) hereinafter “Fengler”.
Regarding claim 39, Dacosta as modified by Moore and Radhakrishnan discloses all the limitations of claim 18 [see rejection of claim 18]
Dacosta as modified by Moore and Radhakrishnan does not disclose that the operation pertains to at least one of: an exposure of the camera device, an ISO setting of the camera device, and a strength of the UV light.
Fengler, directed towards adaptive imaging for low light signal enhancement [see abstract of Fengler] further discloses that the operation pertains to at least one of: an exposure of the camera device, [see [0027] and [0036]of Fengler] an ISO setting of the camera device, and a strength of the UV light. [see [0006] of Fengler]
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill level in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify the teachings of Dacosta as modified by Moore and Radhakrishnan further such that the operation pertains to at least one of: an exposure of the camera device, an ISO setting of the camera device, and a strength of the UV light according to the teachings of Fengler in order to enhance the quality of the image in low intensity light environment [see [0006] of Fengler]
Regarding claim 49, Dacosta as modified by Moore, Radhakrishnan and Ozcan discloses all the limitations of claim 1 [see rejection of claim 1]
Dacosta as modified by Moore, Radhakrishnan, and Ozcan does not disclose that the operation pertains to at least one of: an exposure of the camera device, an International Organization of Standardization (ISO) setting of the camera device, and a strength of the UV light.
Fengler, directed towards adaptive imaging for low light signal enhancement [see abstract of Fengler] further discloses that the operation pertains to at least one of: an exposure of the camera device, [see [0027] and [0036]of Fengler] an ISO setting of the camera device, and a strength of the UV light. [see [0006] of Fengler]
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill level in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify the teachings of Dacosta as modified by Moore, Radhakrishnan and Ozcan further such that the operation pertains to at least one of: an exposure of the camera device, an ISO setting of the camera device, and a strength of the UV light according to the teachings of Fengler in order to enhance the quality of the image in low intensity light environment [see [0006] of Fengler]
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 18, and 47 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARJAN - SABOKTAKIN whose telephone number is (303)297-4278. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 am-5pm CT.
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, Michael Carey can be reached at (571) 270-7235. 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.
/MARJAN SABOKTAKIN/Examiner, Art Unit 3797
/MICHAEL J CAREY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3795
