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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see “Applicant Arguments/Remarks”, filed 09/24/2025, with respect to objection to the claims has been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection to the claims has been withdrawn.
The rejection to Claim 18 is made moot by the cancelation of the claim.
Applicant's arguments, filed 09/24/2025, regarding the amendments to the color component changing based on the light transmitted through the glasses, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Umezawa teaches these amendments (“wherein the image processing unit is configured to change one color component of a first image separated from the visible light image which includes the one color component corresponding to the treatment laser light”) in Para. 0107 (“The HSV color space is divided into 10000 colors. Each color is multiplied by the light emission spectrum of the display, the transmission spectrum of the goggles, and the CIE standard color-matching functions. The same colors are removed from the resulting color map to extract 1000 colors. Using these 1000 colors, the color of a UI of the display system and the color of an image display portion are determined”) and “shielded by light-shielding glasses to another color component transmitted through the light-shielding glasses other than the one color component” in Para. 0107 (“The operator wears the green laser safety goggles and captures the face of the operator themselves wearing the goggles, using the camera. Then, the tablet terminal detects that the operator wears the goggles. Next, the tablet terminal displays a list of the types of laser safety goggles that can be selected. If one of the types of laser safety goggles is selected, the color map of the display is changed using a color map corresponding to the selected goggles, thereby performing display”), and then output the display image reconstructed by “synthesizing the first image which is changed from the one color to the another color transmitted through the light-shielding glasses to a second image separated from the visible light image and including the another color transmitted through the light-shielding glasses when the treatment of the treatment target site is being performed by the treatment laser light” in Para. 0107 (“The HSV color space is divided into 10000 colors. Each color is multiplied by the light emission spectrum of the display, the transmission spectrum of the goggles, and the CIE standard color-matching functions. The same colors are removed from the resulting color map to extract 1000 colors. Using these 1000 colors, the color of a UI of the display system and the color of an image display portion are determined”).
However, Applicant’s arguments moving the limitations regarding the fluorescing agent from the preamble into the claim language is persuasive to remove the 102 rejections regarding Claims 1-3 and 8. These claims also rejected in the alternate under U.S.C. 103 to Umezawa and Boyden, and that rejection is maintained.
Further, Applicant’s amendments require further objections to the claims.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
i. Regarding Claim 1, “cancel cell” should read “cancer cell”.
ii. Further regarding Claim 1, the final limitation is not grammatically correct, as the final words “that are bound to each other” appear to be redundant if other claim language is not missing from the limitation. The Examiner is interpreting that this is merely redundant language.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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 1-3 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication 20170206855 awarded to Umezawa et al, hereinafter Umezawa, as applied to the claims above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Publication 20080059070 awarded to Boyden et al, hereinafter Boyden.
Regarding Claims 1 and 19, Umezawa teaches a treatment support device including a light source unit for outputting treatment laser light of a predetermined wavelength belonging to visible light as the treatment light to the treatment target site (Fig. 9, laser apparatus L, Para. 0030 states visible light can be reduced by the eyewear, and Para. 0031 lists laser that are capable of providing said visible light), an imaging unit including a visible light detection unit for detecting visible light, the imaging unit being capable of imaging the treatment laser light reflected at the treatment target site and the treatment target site by the visible light detection unit as a visible light image (Para. 0105, “Further, the above description has been given taking as an example the configuration in which the operator inputs the color of the light transmission portion. Alternatively, the configuration may be such that the display system estimates the color of the light transmission portion from a camera image captured by the camera provided in the display system. In this manner, it is possible to improve the convenience of the display system. In this case, it is desirable to perform display urging the operator to confirm whether the color of the light transmission portion estimated by the display system is appropriate”); and an image processing unit for generating a display image by subjecting the visible light image to image and a display device configured to display the display image processing (Para. 0057, “It is further beneficial that the display unit 5 is configured having an information processing apparatus and a display. The display may be a touch panel, or may not include an input mechanism such as a touch panel. In the case of a touch panel, the display unit 5 may include the information acquisition unit 3 and the display control unit 4”), wherein the image processing unit is configured to change one color component of a first image separated from the visible light image which includes the one color component corresponding to the treatment laser light (Para. 0107, “The HSV color space is divided into 10000 colors. Each color is multiplied by the light emission spectrum of the display, the transmission spectrum of the goggles, and the CIE standard color-matching functions. The same colors are removed from the resulting color map to extract 1000 colors. Using these 1000 colors, the color of a UI of the display system and the color of an image display portion are determined”) and shielded by light-shielding glasses to another color component transmitted through the light-shielding glasses other than the one color component (Para. 0107, “The operator wears the green laser safety goggles and captures the face of the operator themselves wearing the goggles, using the camera. Then, the tablet terminal detects that the operator wears the goggles. Next, the tablet terminal displays a list of the types of laser safety goggles that can be selected. If one of the types of laser safety goggles is selected, the color map of the display is changed using a color map corresponding to the selected goggles, thereby performing display”), and then output the display image reconstructed by synthesizing the first image which is changed from the one color to the another color transmitted through the light-shielding glasses to a second image separated from the visible light image and including the another color transmitted through the light-shielding glasses when the treatment of the treatment target site is being performed by the treatment laser light (Para. 0107, “The HSV color space is divided into 10000 colors. Each color is multiplied by the light emission spectrum of the display, the transmission spectrum of the goggles, and the CIE standard color-matching functions. The same colors are removed from the resulting color map to extract 1000 colors. Using these 1000 colors, the color of a UI of the display system and the color of an image display portion are determined”). Umezawa further teaches wherein the imaging system is used to improve the visualization of an operating display when using protective eyewear, including visible light (Para. 0006, “The present disclosure is directed to a display system, an eyewear, and a method for controlling a display system that are capable of, in a case where an operator views a display screen in the state where the operator wears protective eyeglasses, reducing a decrease in the visibility occurring due to mixture of colors, and enabling the operator to easily operate a UI”), but Umezawa does not teach wherein the aforementioned device is used with a treatment support device for performing treatment support when irradiating a treatment target site in a subject with treatment light in a state in which a fluorescence medical agent in which an agent that emits fluorescence by absorbing excitation light and an antibody that selectively binds to a cancer cell has been administered to the subject.
However, in the art of imaging, Boyden teaches a treatment support device for performing treatment support when irradiating a treatment target site in a subject with treatment light (Para. 0181) in a state in which a fluorescence medical agent in which an agent that emits fluorescence by absorbing excitation light and an antibody that selectively binds to a cancer cell are bound to each other has been administered to the subject (Para. 0180, “Tissue may be screened with a device that detects and ablates cancerous cells optionally in real time. The device emits electromagnetic energy at wavelengths to induce autofluorescence selected to differentiate between normal and cancerous cells. Alternatively, the device emits electromagnetic energy at wavelengths sufficient to cause fluorescence of reagents added to the tissue to selectively detect cancerous cells, such as, for example, a photosensitizer, a chemical dye, or an antibody or aptamer conjugated to a fluorescent tag”), the treatment being tracked using a visible light targeting beam (Para. 0230, “The handheld device 2011 may include a monitor 2013 that allows the user 2001 to observe the autofluorescence emitted from the lesion 2002 in real time and/or to observe a targeting beam of optionally visual light indicating the location of emitted energy for excitation and/or ablation”) when manually targeting the pathological, fluoresced tissue that requires ablation (Para. 0230, “. The targeting aids 2014 are used, for example, to register the position of autofluorescence associated with pathogens or pathological tissue within the lesion 2002 with respect to the surface of the patient 2003. As such, the user 2001 may screen the entire lesion 2002, noting the position of possible pathogens or pathological tissue. The user 2001 may subsequently return to specific regions of concern and at the discretion of the user 2001, manually initiate ablation using, for example, a trigger 2012”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Umezawa by Boyden, i.e. by using the imaging system of Umezawa in the treatment system of Boyden, for the predictable purpose of improving the visualization of the targeting beam in Boyden to improve safety and accuracy of the procedure as set forth in Umezawa above.
Regarding Claim 2, Umezawa modified by Boyden makes obvious, the treatment support system as recited in claim 1. Umezawa further teaches wherein a wavelength corresponding to the treatment laser light including a pixel value of the another color component in the visible light image is a wavelength within a range of visible light other than a first bandwidth of a light-shielding glasses, the first bandwidth including the predetermined wavelength of the treatment laser light (abstract, Para. 0028, “According to the present exemplary embodiment, even if an operator views a UI of a tablet terminal in the state where the operator wears an eyewear including a colored light transmission portion, such as laser safety goggles, it is possible to reduce a decrease in the visibility occurring due to the mixture of the color of the light transmission portion and the color of the UI. Consequently, the operator can easily operate the UI of the tablet terminal. Thus, it is possible to reduce an error in the operation”).
Regarding Claim 3, Umezawa modified by Boyden makes obvious, the treatment support system as recited in claim 1. Umezawa further teaches wherein the image processing unit is configured to convert a pixel value of the one color component of a first image including the one color component corresponding to the treatment laser light separated from the visible light image to a pixel value of the another color component and then synthesize the first image of the another color component into a second image including the another color component separated from the visible light image (Para. 0043-0045 disclose the method of isolating a color blocked by the protective glasses, red in this instance, and creating a color map to create a new image visible when red light is 100% blocked).
Claims 4-7 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication 20170206855 awarded to Umezawa et al, hereinafter Umezawa, as applied to the claims above, in view of U.S. Patent Publication 20080059070 awarded to Boyden et al, hereinafter Boyden, further in view of U.S. Patent Publication 20190117055 awarded to Ito et al, hereinafter Ito.
Regarding Claims 4 and 5, Umezawa modified by Boyden makes obvious, the treatment support system as recited in Claim 1, wherein the treatment laser light of the predetermined wavelength is near infrared laser light (Umezawa Para. 0030, “The particular band may be set for the purpose of reducing the intensity of any band of light such as visible light, near-infrared light, or ultraviolet light”). Umezawa does not teach wherein the image processing unit is configured to reconstruct the display image by adding a pixel value of a red component as the one color component corresponding to the treatment laser light separated from the visible light image to at least one of a pixel value of a blue component and a pixel value of a green component as the another color component wherein the image processing unit is configured to reconstruct the display image by weight-adding the pixel value of the red component as the one color component corresponding to the treatment laser light separated from the visible light image to at least one of the pixel value of the blue component and the pixel value of the green component as the another color component.
However, in the art of imaging, Ito teaches a pixel color balance of 2:1:1 of blue, green, and red, respectively for better visualization (Para. 0158-0159).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Umezawa modified by Boyden, i.e. by balancing the colors as in Ito, for the predictable purpose of simply substituting one known method of color balancing for another.
Regarding Claims 6-7, Umezawa modified by Boyden and Ito makes obvious the treatment support system as recited in claim 4. Umezawa does not teach wherein the image processing unit is configured to reconstruct a plurality of the display images in which a ratio of distribution of the pixel value of the red component to the pixel value of the blue component and the pixel value of the green component is differentiated from each other and display the plurality of display images on the display device in a switchable manner, or wherein the plurality of display images includes either the display image in which at least all of the pixel value of the red component is added to the pixel value of the blue component or the display image in which all of the pixel values of the red component is added to the pixel value of the green component.
However, both Umezawa and Ito teach adjusting the color balancing depending on the needs of the particular treatment (Umezawa Para. 0051 and Ito Para. 0130).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Umezawa modified by Boyden and Ito, i.e. by adjusting the pixel values as disclosed above, as it is within the skill of the artisan do determine the particular color grading/adjustments necessary based on the particular treatment parameters.
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 Jess Mullins whose telephone number is (571)-272-8977. The examiner can normally be reached between the hours of 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. PST M-F.
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, James Kish, can be reached at (571)-272-5554. The fax 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/JLM/
Examiner, Art Unit 3792
/UNSU JUNG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3792