DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 8/27/2026 has been entered.
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, 4-11, 20, 21, 23, 24, 26-28, and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
As to claims 1,
Step 2A, Prong One
The claim recites in part:
the DNN control unit changes parameters of the DNN model based on the control information, including at least one of a stride number, a padding number, a bias value, a learning rate, or a batch size,
the DNN control unit changes at least one of an input image size and a filter size of the DNN model,
the DNN processor respectively outputs a plurality of recognition results corresponding to the first image data, the second image data, and the third image data, and determines an object position based on the plurality of recognition results, and
As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. A human can easily change the parameters of a computer program. As per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C)), a claim that requires a computer may still recite a mental process. In evaluating whether a claim that requires a computer recites a mental process, examiners should carefully consider the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim in light of the specification.
Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong One, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of:
a DNN control unit configured to receive control information generated based on evaluation information of a result of the execution of the DNN and change the DNN model based on the control information,
which amounts to extra-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process. As described in MPEP 2106.05(g), limitations that amount to merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
The claim further recites:
a Deep Neural Network (DNN) processor configured to execute a DNN for an input image represented by image data including a plurality of pixel values based on a DNN model;
the DNN processor executes the DNN using a first image data of the input image, a second image data of the input image generated from the first image data by geometric transformation to have a different aspect ratio from the first image data, and a third image data of the input image generated by applying noise to the first image data,
which is recited at a high-level of generality with no detail of the training process and amounts to no more than adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(f))
The claim further recites:
the CCU controls the endoscope according to the execution of the DNN by adjusting at least one image capturing parameter of the solid-state image capturing device, including at least one of an exposure value, a frame rate, or a magnification, based on the determined object position.
which is recited at a high-level of generality with no detail of the training process and amounts to no more than adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(f))
The claim further recites a endoscopic operation system, solid-state image capturing device, camera control unit (CCU), DNN processor, DNN control unit, and endoscope which are recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
In addition, the recitation of DNN, input image, control information, evaluation information, DNN model, parameters, filter value, filter weight, learning, image data, and aspect ratio amounts to generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular environment of field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h)). As such, the claim does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong Two, the additional elements individually or in combination do no integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements of:
a DNN control unit configured to receive control information generated based on evaluation information of a result of the execution of the DNN and change the DNN model based on the control information,
are recited at a high level of generality and amounts to extra-solution activity of receiving data i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process. The courts have found limitations directed to obtaining information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory").
The claim further recites:
a Deep Neural Network (DNN) processor configured to execute a DNN for an input image represented by image data including a plurality of pixel values based on a DNN model;
the DNN processor executes the DNN using a first image data of the input image, a second image data of the input image generated from the first image data by geometric transformation to have a different aspect ratio from the first image data, and a third image data of the input image generated by applying noise to the first image data,
which is recited at a high-level of generality with no detail of the training process and amounts to no more than adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(f))
The claim further recites:
the CCU controls the endoscope according to the execution of the DNN by adjusting at least one image capturing parameter of the solid-state image capturing device, including at least one of an exposure value, a frame rate, or a magnification, based on the determined object position.
which is recited at a high-level of generality with no detail of the training process and amounts to no more than adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(f))
The endoscopic operation system, solid-state image capturing device, camera control unit (CCU), DNN processor, DNN control unit, and endoscope are recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The recitation of DNN, input image, control information, evaluation information, DNN model, parameters, filter value, filter weight, learning, image data, and aspect ratio amounts to generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular environment of field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As to claims 4,
Step 2A, Prong One
The claim does not recite an abstract idea or any other judicial exception and therefore passes Step 2A, Prong One of the Alice/Mayo analysis.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of:
a memory configured to store at least one DNN model executed by the DNN processor
which amounts to extra-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process. As described in MPEP 2106.05(g), limitations that amount to merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong Two, the additional elements individually or in combination do no integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements of:
a memory configured to store at least one DNN model executed by the DNN processor
are recited at a high level of generality and amounts to extra-solution activity of receiving data i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process. The courts have found limitations directed to obtaining information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory").
Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As to claims 5,
Step 2A, Prong One
The claim does not recite an abstract idea or any other judicial exception and therefore passes Step 2A, Prong One of the Alice/Mayo analysis.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of:
wherein the memory stores learning data for the DNN processor
which amounts to extra-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process. As described in MPEP 2106.05(g), limitations that amount to merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong Two, the additional elements individually or in combination do no integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements of:
wherein the memory stores learning data for the DNN processor
are recited at a high level of generality and amounts to extra-solution activity of receiving data i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process. The courts have found limitations directed to obtaining information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory").
Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As to claim 6,
Step 2A, Prong One
The claim recites in part:
wherein the DNN control unit switches, based on the control information, the executed DNN model to the DNN model stored in the memory
As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. A human can easily switch between two modes of a computer program. As per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C)), a claim that requires a computer may still recite a mental process. In evaluating whether a claim that requires a computer recites a mental process, examiners should carefully consider the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim in light of the specification.
Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong One, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The claim does not include additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Step 2B
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to “significantly more” to the judicial exception.
As to claim 7,
Step 2A, Prong One
The claim recites in part:
an evaluation unit configured to generate evaluation information by evaluating the result of the execution of the DNN
As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. A human has been evaluating results before computers where ever invented.
The evaluation unit is recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The recitation of evaluation information amounts to generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular environment of field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong One, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two
Further the claim does not include additional elements that integrate this abstract idea into a practical application. “Evaluation” is performed using generic computer components performing their typical functions and does not provide a meaningful technological improvement.
The evaluation unit is recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The recitation of evaluation information amounts to generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular environment of field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong Two, the additional elements individually or in combination do no integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B
Nothing in the claim adds “significantly more” beyond generic computing.
The evaluation unit is recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The recitation of evaluation information amounts to generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular environment of field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As to claim 8,
Step 2A, Prong One
The claim recites in part:
wherein the DNN control unit changes the DNN model based on the correct-answer data
As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. A human has been evaluating results before computers where ever invented.
Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong One, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The claim does not include additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Step 2B
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to “significantly more” to the judicial exception.
As to claim 9,
Step 2A, Prong One
The claim recites in part:
wherein the evaluation unit generates the evaluation information by evaluating a processing situation at inference and learning of the DNN processor
As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. A human has been evaluating results before computers where ever invented.
Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong One, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The claim does not include additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Step 2B
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to “significantly more” to the judicial exception.
As to claim 10,
Step 2A, Prong One
The claim recites in part:
wherein the DNN control unit changes the DNN model based on the correct-answer data
As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. A human can easily change a computer program with different data. As per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C)), a claim that requires a computer may still recite a mental process. In evaluating whether a claim that requires a computer recites a mental process, examiners should carefully consider the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim in light of the specification.
Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong One, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The claim does not include additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Step 2B
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to “significantly more” to the judicial exception.
As to claim 11,
Step 2A, Prong One
The claim recites in part:
wherein the evaluation information includes information related to a result of recognition of the DNN
As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. A human has been evaluating results before computers where ever invented.
Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong One, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The claim does not include additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Step 2B
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to “significantly more” to the judicial exception.
Claim 20 has similar limitations as claim 1. Therefore, the claim is rejected for the same reasons as above.
The claim further recites a non-transitory computer readable medium are recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
As to claim 21,
Step 2A, Prong One
The claim does not recite an abstract idea or any other judicial exception and therefore passes Step 2A, Prong One of the Alice/Mayo analysis.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of:
the DNN processor respectively outputs a first recognition result, a second recognition result, and a third recognition result as recognition results of the first image data, the second image data, and the third image data
the DNN processor determines an object position in the first recognition result, the second recognition result and the third recognition result, and
the DNN processor produces a fourth recognition result by overlaying the first recognition result, the second recognition result and the third recognition result according to the determined object position.
which is recited at a high-level of generality with no detail of the training process and amounts to no more than adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(f))
Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong Two, the additional elements individually or in combination do no integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements of:
the DNN processor respectively outputs a first recognition result, a second recognition result, and a third recognition result as recognition results of the first image data, the second image data, and the third image data
the DNN processor determines an object position in the first recognition result, the second recognition result and the third recognition result, and
the DNN processor produces a fourth recognition result by overlaying the first recognition result, the second recognition result and the third recognition result according to the determined object position.
which is recited at a high-level of generality with no detail of the training process and amounts to no more than adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(f))
Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 23 has similar limitations as claim 21. Therefore, the claim is rejected for the same reasons as above.
As to claim 24,
Step 2A, Prong One
The claim recites in part:
the camera control unit adjusts at least one image-capturing parameter of the endoscope according to the execution of the DNN, and
As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. A human can easily change the parameters of a computer program. As per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C)), a claim that requires a computer may still recite a mental process. In evaluating whether a claim that requires a computer recites a mental process, examiners should carefully consider the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim in light of the specification.
Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong One, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The claim does not include additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Step 2B
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to “significantly more” to the judicial exception.
As to claim 26,
Step 2A, Prong One
The claim recites in part:
the second image data is generated by changing an aspect ratio of the first image data using geometric transformation processing
As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. A human can easily change the parameters of a computer program. As per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C)), a claim that requires a computer may still recite a mental process. In evaluating whether a claim that requires a computer recites a mental process, examiners should carefully consider the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim in light of the specification.
Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong One, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The claim does not include additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Step 2B
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to “significantly more” to the judicial exception.
As to claim 27,
Step 2A, Prong One
The claim recites in part:
the evaluation unit generates correct-answer data by calculating an average or a weighted average of recognition results obtained from the first image data, the second image data, and the third image data.
As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. A human can easily change the parameters of a computer program. As per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C)), a claim that requires a computer may still recite a mental process. In evaluating whether a claim that requires a computer recites a mental process, examiners should carefully consider the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim in light of the specification.
Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong One, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The claim does not include additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Step 2B
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to “significantly more” to the judicial exception.
Claim 28 has similar limitations as claim 24. Therefore, the claim is rejected for the same reasons as above.
Claim 30 has similar limitations as claim 26. Therefore, the claim is rejected for the same reasons as above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/27/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
The 101 Rejection still has not been overcome. The claims are abstract and the steps in the claims can be completed with a mental process and/or generic computer components. Additionally, the steps in the claims do not describe an improvement of technology in any way.
The applicant argues:
The Action maintains that operations such as changing parameters of a DNN model, modifying input image size or filter size, and generating image variants could be performed in the human mind or with pencil and paper. The Action further concludes that the recited features therefore fall within the "mental process" grouping of abstract ideas.
This position is inconsistent with the claim as presently amended. Claim 1 now expressly recites that a DNN processor executes a neural network for an input image represented by image data including a plurality of pixel values, and that the network be executed over multiple forms of that image data, including second image data generated by geometric transformation to have a different aspect ratio and third image data generated by applying noise to the original image data. The claim further recites that the DNN processor outputs a plurality of recognition results corresponding to these different image datasets and determines an object position based on those recognition results.
These features define a specific mode of operation involving machine execution of structured neural network processing over image data comprising pixel values. The claim does not merely recite "changing data" in the abstract, but rather requires execution of a DNN over multiple transformed datasets and the generation and aggregation of multiple recognition outputs to derive
spatial information. Such processing is not practically performable in the human mind and does not correspond to the types of observation, evaluation, or judgment contemplated by the "mental process" grouping.
The Action characterizes the claimed operations at a level of abstraction that omits these recited technical details. When the claim is evaluated as a whole and in light of its express language, it is clear that the recited operations require machine execution of neural network processing over image data structures, not human mental activity.
Accordingly, claim 1 does not recite a mental process under Step 2A, Prong One.
The examiner disagrees. The claimed use of a DNN processor and image data represented by pixel values does not, by itself, remove the recited limitations from the mental process grouping. The operations of modifying image characteristics, generating variations of information, comparing recognition on those results, and determining an object position based on those results are evaluations and judgements that can be performed by a human using observation and reasoning. Just implementing such operations using a neural network, multiple datasets, or particular data representations does not change the fact that the limitations are an abstract idea.
The applicant argues:
Even assuming, arguendo, that a judicial exception is implicated, the claim integrates any such exception into a practical application.
The Action asserts that the claimed elements amount to high-level data processing and that controlling the endoscope based on DNN output constitutes insignificant extra-solution activity. This characterization does not reflect the claim as amended.
Claim 1 expressly recites that the camera control unit controls the endoscope by adjusting at least one image capturing parameter of the solid-state image capturing device, including at least one of an exposure value, a frame rate, or a magnification, based on the object position determined by the DNN. Thus, the claimed system is not merely performing data processing and then displaying or outputting a result. Rather, the claim defines a closed-loop control architecture in which the output of the DNN directly governs how the imaging device operates.
In particular, the claim recites that image data captured by the endoscope is processed through a DNN using multiple transformed inputs, that spatial information in the form of object position is determined from the resulting recognition outputs, and that this spatial information is then used to adjust physical image capturing parameters of the endoscope. Adjustments to exposure, frame rate, and magnification directly affect how images are captured by the system and therefore modify the operation of the imaging hardware itself.
The Action characterizes the claimed components as merely providing a field of use or environment. However, the claim does not simply apply processing in an endoscopic environment. Instead, it sets forth that the results of DNN processing be used to dynamically control the operation of the endoscope in a technically meaningful way. This constitutes an integration of any alleged abstract processing into a concrete technological application directed to the operation of an imaging system.
Accordingly, under Step 2A, Prong Two, the claim is directed to a practical application.
The examiner disagrees. The recitation of controlling an endoscope by adjusting image-capturing parameters based on the determined object position does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claimed control simply applies the result of the abstract idea into a practical application. These limitations do not show an improvement to the functioning of the endoscope or imaging technology byt merely uses the endoscope wherein abstract results are applied. The additional elements do not impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception.
The applicant argues:
The Action concludes that the additional elements are well-understood, routine, and conventional and amount to no more than implementation of an abstract idea on generic computer components. This conclusion does not account for the claim as a whole. Claim 1 recites a combination of features that operate together to form a specific technical system. The claim recites that multiple variants of image data are generated from a captured image, that a DNN be executed over those multiple inputs, that multiple recognition results are produced and used to determine object position, and that the resulting spatial information are used to control physical image capturing parameters of an endoscopic device. This arrangement defines a coordinated interaction between data processing and device control, rather than mere data handling.
The Action characterizes the control of the endoscope as insignificant extra-solution activity. However, the adjustment of exposure, frame rate, and magnification directly impact how the imaging system captures data. These are not peripheral or post-processing activities, but real operational parameters of the imaging device. The claim therefore recite outputs of the processing stage that materially affect the operation of the underlying hardware.
When considered as an ordered combination, the claim recites a system in which DNN- based analysis of image data is used to dynamically configure an imaging device. This constitutes a technological implementation that goes beyond merely applying an abstract idea on a computer and instead defines a specific way in which an imaging system operates.
The examiner disagrees. Applicant’s arguments convince the examiner that the claimed limitations integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The recited generation of image variants, DNN processing, recognition, and determination of object position consists of data processing/analysis. The adjustment of exposure, frame rate, or magnification merely uses the results of that analysis to control conventional imaging functions. The claims do not recite an improvement to the operation of the DNN, endoscope, or any type of imaging technology, but rather use these components as tools to implement the abstract idea. Accordingly, considering the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception or integrate the exception into a practical application.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRANDON S COLE whose telephone number is (571)270-5075. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 7:30pm - 5pm EST (Alternate Friday's Off).
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, Omar Fernandez can be reached on 571-272-2589. 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.
/BRANDON S COLE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2128
Prosecution Insights