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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 01/30/2026 has been entered.
Applicant's amendments and remarks, filed 01/30/2026, are acknowledged. Rejections and/or objections not reiterated from previous office actions are hereby withdrawn. The following rejections and/or objections are either reiterated or newly applied. They constitute the complete set presently being applied to the instant application.
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 11, 13, and 14 are under examination.
Claims 2-10, 12 are cancelled.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) is acknowledged. This application is the National Stage filing under 35 USC 371 of PCT/JP2019/028894 filed on 07/23/2019. Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Withdrawn Rejections
The rejection of claims 1, 11, 13, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement is withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendments.
Claim rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 11, 14, 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. Claims that depend directly or indirectly from claim(s) 1, 11 is/are also rejected due to said dependency.
Claims 1, 11, 14 recite “obtaining a first data set correlating endoscope images and distances from image sensors of endoscopes to suspected lesions with first corrections correcting three-dimensional maps of organ inner walls to compensate for subject peristalsis”. While the artisan would recognize what “obtaining data” means, Applicant is reminded that claim scope is not limited by claim language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed. MPEP 2111.04. In this case, the “obtaining” step is problematic because it suggests or implies additional positive process limitations (e.g. correlating images and distances to suspected lesions, correcting 3D maps) without explicitly requiring any such steps. Accordingly, it is unclear what positive process limitations is/are encompassed by the claimed “obtaining” step and what type of “first data” is actually being obtained. As a result, the claim also appears to be missing essential subject matter (namely correlating data and correcting 3D maps). See MPEP § 2172.01. Clarification is requested by amending the claims to provide a clear-cut indication of the functionality performed by the claimed method using active language.
Claims 1, 11, 14 recite “correcting the three-dimensional map using one of the first corrections selected by optimizing a coefficient used in arithmetic processing of the first data set.” Such generic functional claim language amounts to descriptions of problems to be solved. Accordingly, it is unclear what computational operations are actually encompassed by the claimed “correcting” such that the artisan would recognize the boundary of mathematical or computational operations required to achieve the claimed result. Stated differently, it is unclear in what way the claimed correcting step uses “corrections” selected by optimizing a generically recited coefficient “used in arithmetic processing of the first data set”. A review of the specification does not provide any limiting definitions or examples that would serve to clarify the scope. Clarification is requested via amendment. Applicant is encouraged to amend the claim, for example, to incorporate specific algorithms or equations that achieve the claimed results.
Claims 1, 11, 14 recite “obtaining a second data set correlating the first and second difference data of subjects and a biological attribute of the subjects with deterioration amounts of suspected lesions of the subjects”. While the artisan would recognize what “obtaining data” means, Applicant is reminded that claim scope is not limited by claim language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed. MPEP 2111.04. In this case, the “obtaining” step is problematic because it suggests or implies additional positive process limitations (e.g. correlating different data sets and an attribute with deterioration amounts) without explicitly requiring any such steps. Accordingly, it is unclear what positive process limitations is/are encompassed by the claimed “obtaining” step and what type of “second data” is actually being obtained. As a result, the claim also appears to be missing essential subject matter. See MPEP § 2172.01. Clarification is requested by amending the claims to provide a clear-cut indication of the functionality performed by the claimed method using active language.
Claims 1, 11, 14 recite “determining a current deterioration amount of the suspected lesion based on the correlations in the second data set of the first and second difference data and the biological attribute with the deterioration amounts by optimizing a parameter used in arithmetic processing of the second data set.” Such generic functional claim language amounts to descriptions of problems to be solved. Accordingly, it is unclear what computational operations are actually encompassed by the claimed “determining” such that the artisan would recognize the boundary of mathematical or computational operations required to achieve the claimed result. Stated differently, it is unclear in what way is the “current deterioration amount of a suspected lesion” is determined by optimizing a generically recited parameter “used in arithmetic processing of the second data set”. A review of the specification does not provide any limiting definitions or examples that would serve to clarify the scope. Clarification is requested via amendment. Applicant is encouraged to amend the claim, for example, to incorporate specific algorithms or equations that achieve the claimed results.
Claims 1, 11, 14 recite “instructing a display to display an image obtained by visualizing the deterioration prediction value when the deterioration prediction value is larger than a predetermined deterioration threshold value determined by the severity of the suspected lesion.” Firstly, the artisan would recognize that a display does not have a “brain” but merely displays information (based on input from a processor). Therefore, it is unclear what is meant by “instructing a display to display…” as it is the processor that is instructed to display information. Secondly, it is unclear what information is actually being displayed (e.g. an image, the deterioration prediction value, some combination thereof, or otherwise). Lastly, the “instructing” step includes a conditional limitation (when the deterioration prediction value is larger than a predetermined deterioration threshold). As a result, , it is unclear what positive process limitation(s) is/are performed when the condition is “not” met. Clarification is requested via amendment.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PABLO S WHALEY whose telephone number is (571)272-4425. The examiner can normally be reached between 1pm-9pm EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Anita Coope can be reached at 571-270-3614. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/PABLO S WHALEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619