DETAILED ACTION
This communication is responsive to Applicant’s amendment for application 17/744,770 dated 15 August 2025, responding to the 18 June 2025 Office Action provided in the rejection of claims 1-13 and 15, wherein claims 1 and 12-13 have been amended and claims 5-6 have been canceled.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the prior art rejections as presented in the previous Office action are considered moot in light of the new grounds of rejection.
Claims 1-4, 7-13, and 15 remain pending in the application and have been fully considered by the examiner.
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 .
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular paragraphs or columns and lines in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Information Disclosure Statement
As required by M.P.E.P. 609, the applicant’s submissions of the Information Disclosure Statement dated 8 September 2025 is acknowledged by the examiner and the cited references have been considered in the examination of the claims now pending.
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.
Claims 1-2 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Savekar et al. (U.S. 2005/0093885) (Hereinafter Savekar) in view of Burges (U.S. 5,727,081) (Hereinafter Burges), further in view of Hara et al. (U.S. 2009/0272907) (Hereinafter Hara), and further in view of Kerr et al. (Modeling GPU-CPU Workloads and Systems; published 03/14/2010) (Hereinafter Kerr – art made of record).
As per claim 1, Savekar discloses a control device (see for example Savekar, this limitation is disclosed such that there is a system for providing images for display (i.e. system is a control device); paragraph [0009]) comprising:
two or more first processors (see for example Savekar, this limitation is disclosed such that the system comprises a first processor and a second processor (i.e. two or more processors); paragraphs [0009], [0040]),
wherein one processor, of the two or more first processors, acquires an image to be processed which is an object to be subjected to a support process that is … an imaging support process, and distributes a process to one of a plurality of second processors to execute the support process according to content of the support process to be executed for the image to be processed (see for example Savekar this limitation is disclosed such that the first processor oversees the process of decoding video image frames (i.e. one of the two processors acquires an image to be processed which is an object to subjected to a support process that is an imaging support process). Displaying of the video image of a frame is offloaded to the second processor (i.e. distributing a process to one of a plurality of processors (the second processor) to executing the support processes (the displaying) according to content of the support process executed for the image to be processed), paragraph [0041]).
Although Savekar discloses a support process that is an imaging support process, Savekar does not explicitly teach a support process that is a diagnosis support process and an imaging support process, wherein the imaging support process is a process that is performed on the image in order to support capture of the image, and the diagnosis support process is a process that is performed for the image in order to support interpretation of the image.
However, Burges discloses a support process that is a diagnosis support process and an imaging support process (see for example Burges, this limitation is disclosed such that there is a multiple character recognition (MCR) system; col.14 line {60} – col.15 line {14}. Various stages are carried out during the character-string interpretation process (i.e. support process) including a first stage A of capturing an image of a character-string (i.e. an imaging support process), a second stage B that involves preprocessing the captured image, and a third stage C that generates image cells so that the image cells can be combined to form image segments (i.e. diagnosis support process); col.8 line {46} – col.9 line {15}),
wherein the imaging support process is a process that is performed on the image in order to support capture of the image, and the diagnosis support process is a process that is performed for the image in order to support interpretation of the image (see for example Burges, this limitation is disclosed such that the first stage of the character-string interpretation process (i.e. first stage corresponding to the imaging support process) captures the images of the character string, acquiring the image as a matrix of pixels stored into frame buffers (i.e. process that is performed on an image in order to support capture of the image). The second stage of the character-string interpretation process performs preprocessing operations on the captured image and for the interpretation process, locating a “region of interest”, removing underlines, etc., while the third stage involves cutting the preprocessed image into cells that can be combined to form image segments during a fourth stage (i.e. stages corresponding to claimed diagnosis support process are performed in order to support the character-string interpretation process they are part of); col.8 line {46} – col.9 line {15}).
Savekar in view of Burges is analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, processing management.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method as taught by Savekar by having stages of image interpretation processing as taught by Burges because it would enhance the teaching of Savekar with an effective means of performing a number of functions in order to capture and arrive at an interpretation of a graphically recorded image (as suggested by Burges, see for example col.8 lines {22}-{29}).
Savekar in view of Burges does not explicitly teach the limitation wherein an imaging support process that is performed for an image in order to support positioning of a subject by an operator.
However, Hara discloses the limitation wherein an imaging support process that is performed for an image in order to support positioning of a subject by an operator (see for example Hara, this limitation is disclosed such that a control device composed of a CPU provides a touch panel and position adjustment switch for an operator to control position of a subject while taking an image of the subject. The positioning via the position adjusting switch by the operator is control by the CPU executing a control program (i.e. an imaging support process is performed for an image in order to support positioning of a subject by an operator); paragraph [0082]).
Savekar in view of Burges is analogous art with Hara because they are from the same field of endeavor, processing management.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method as taught by Savekar in view of Burges by supporting positioning by an operator to image a subject as taught by Hara because it would enhance the teaching of Savekar in view of Burges with an effective means of preventing a partial image missing of a subject (as suggested by Hara, see for example paragraph [0026]).
Although Savekar in view of Burges, further in view of Hara discloses a plurality of second processors, Savekar in view of Burges, further in view of Hara does not explicitly teach specifying a real-time property of a support process and a processing load caused by the execution of the support process, and specifying a type of process based on the specified real-time, property, the specified processing load, and distribution information that represents a correspondence relationship between the type of process determined for each of a plurality of processors, and the real-time property and the processing load.
However, Kerr discloses specifying a real-time property of a support process and a processing load caused by the execution of the support process, and specifying a type of process based on the specified real-time property, the specified processing load, and distribution information that represents a correspondence relationship between the type of process determined for each of a plurality of processors, and the real-time property and the processing load (see for example Kerr, this limitation is disclosed such that relationships between program behavior and performance on processors is derived; Abstract. Applications provide runtime support; p.33 section 4.1 LLVM. CUDA threads are mapped onto particular host threads (i.e. specifying a type of process) using variables (i.e. real-time property), a synchronization point (i.e. distribution information) and progress through the kernel for execution (i.e. processing load); p.33 section 4.2 Execution Model Translation).
Savekar in view of Burges, further in view of Hara is analogous art with Kerr because they are from the same field of endeavor, processing management.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method as taught by Savekar in view of Burges, further in view of Hara by mapping threads as taught by Kerr because it would enhance the teaching of Savekar in view of Burges, further in view of Hara with an effective means of efficiently executing applications (as suggested by Kerr, see for example p.31 section 1. Introduction).
As per claim 2, Savekar in view of Burges, further in view of Hara, further in view of Kerr discloses the control device according to claim 1, wherein the plurality of second processors include the two or more first processors (see for example Savekar, this limitation is disclosed such that processors of the system include the first processor and the second processor; paragraph [0041]).
Regarding claim 12, it is a method claim having similar limitations cited in claim 1. Thus, claim 12 is also rejected under the same rationales as cited in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 13, it is a medium claim having similar limitations cited in claim 1. Thus, claim 13 is also rejected under the same rationales as cited in the rejection of claim 1.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Savekar (U.S. 2005/0093885) in view of Burges (U.S. 5,727,081), further in view of Hara (U.S. 2009/0272907), further in view of Kerr (Modeling GPU-CPU Workloads and Systems) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Miller et al. (U.S. 2009/0109230) (Hereinafter Miller).
As per claim 3, Savekar in view of Burges, further in view of Hara, further in view of Kerr discloses the control device according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), but does not explicitly teach the limitation wherein a plurality of second processors include an internal processor that is provided inside a control device and an external processor that is provided in a device outside the control device.
However, Miller discloses the limitation wherein a plurality of second processors include an internal processor that is provided inside a control device and an external processor that is provided in a device outside the control device (see for example Miller, this limitation is disclosed such that a data processing system includes a main CPU (i.e. plurality of processors include an internal processor that is provided inside a control device) and is connected by a communication bus to an external GPU (i.e. external processor that is provided in a device outside the control device; paragraph [0031]).
Savekar in view of Burges, further in view of Hara, further in view of Kerr is analogous art with Miller because they are from the same field of endeavor, processing management.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method as taught by Savekar in view of Burges, further in view of Hara, further in view of Kerr by having an external processor as taught by Miller because it would enhance the teaching of Savekar in view of Burges, further in view of Hara, further in view of Kerr with an effective means of offloading to a processor while taking advantage of advancements when migrating (as suggested by Miller, see for example paragraph [0031]).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Savekar (U.S. 2005/0093885) in view of Burges (U.S. 5,727,081), further in view of Hara (U.S. 2009/0272907), further in view of Kerr (Modeling GPU-CPU Workloads and Systems), further in view of Miller et al. (U.S. 2009/0109230) as applied to claim 3 above, further in view of Park et al. (U.S. 2017/0162545) (Hereinafter Park), and further in view of Todros et al. (U.S. 2006/0111635) (Hereinafter Todros).
As per claim 4, Savekar in view of Burges, further in view of Hara, further in view of Kerr, further in view of Miller discloses the control device according to claim 3 (see rejection of claim 3 above), but does not explicitly teach the limitation wherein, in a case in which the support process is the imaging support process, the one processor distributes the process to the internal processor to execute the support process.
However, Park discloses the limitation wherein, in a case in which the support process is the imaging support process, the one processor distributes the process to the internal processor to execute the support process, (see for example Park, this limitation is disclosed such that an internal processor is used for processing image data; paragraph [0207]).
Savekar in view of Burges, further in view of Hara, further in view of Kerr, further in view of Miller is analogous art with Park because they are from the same field of endeavor, processing management.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method as taught by Savekar in view of Burges, further in view of Hara, further in view of Kerr, further in view of Miller by having an internal processor perform image processing as taught by Park because it would enhance the teaching of Savekar in view of Burges, further in view of Hara, further in view of Kerr, further in view of Miller with an effective means of using a processor with an internal memory device integrated into a system (as suggested by Park, see for example paragraph [0207]).
Savekar in view of Burges, further in view of Hara, further in view of Kerr, further in view of Miller, further in view of Park does not explicitly teach, in a case in which the support process is the diagnosis support process, the one processor distributes the process to the external processor to execute the support process.
However, Todros discloses, in a case in which the support process is the diagnosis support process, the one processor distributes the process to the external processor to execute the support process (see for example Todros, this limitation is disclosed such that diagnostic data is processed by a diagnostic processor remote (i.e. external) from the location the data is collected; paragraphs [0024], [0049]).
Savekar in view of Burges, further in view of Hara, further in view of Kerr, further in view of Miller, further in view of Park is analogous art with Todros because they are from the same field of endeavor, processing management.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method as taught by Savekar in view of Burges, further in view of Hara, further in view of Kerr, further in view of Miller, further in view of Park by having a remote processor perform diagnostic processing as taught by Todros because it would enhance the teaching of Savekar in view of Burges, further in view of Hara, further in view of Kerr, further in view of Miller, further in view of Park with an effective means of using a processor to provide remote analysis over a network (as suggested by Todros, see for example paragraph [0011]).
Claims 5-6 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Savekar (U.S. 2005/0093885) in view of Burges (U.S. 5,727,081), further in view of Hara (U.S. 2009/0272907), further in view of Kerr (Modeling GPU-CPU Workloads and Systems) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Swierk et al. (U.S. 2022/0239847) (Hereinafter Swierk).
As per claim 5, Savekar in view of Burges, further in view of Hara, further in view of Kerr discloses the control device according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), but does not explicitly teach the limitation wherein one processor distributes a process to a processor specified from a plurality of second processors to execute a support process according to a real-time property of the support process.
However, Swierk discloses the limitation wherein one processor distributes a process to a processor specified from a plurality of second processors to execute a support process according to a real-time property of the support process (see for example Swierk, this limitation is disclosed such that multimedia processing control offloads video or audio processing from a CPU to an alternate processor. The offload process is identified with an optimized offload instruction on captured media samples; paragraphs [0020], [0093], [0109]. Alternate processors to the CPU perform real-time audio and video processing; paragraph [0079])
Savekar in view of Burges, further in view of Hara, further in view of Kerr is analogous art with Swierk because they are from the same field of endeavor, processing management.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method as taught by Savekar in view of Burges, further in view of Hara, further in view of Kerr by identifying an offload processor as taught by Swierk because it would enhance the teaching of Savekar in view of Burges, further in view of Hara, further in view of Kerr with an effective means of balancing CPU load of media samples with quality of user experience (as suggested by Swierk, see for example paragraph [0093]).
As per claim 6, Savekar in view of Burges, further in view of Hara, further in view of Kerr discloses the control device according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), but does not explicitly teach the limitation wherein one processor distributes process to a processor specified from plurality of second processors to execute a support process according to a processing load caused by the execution of a support process.
However, Swierk discloses the limitation wherein one processor distributes process to a processor specified from a plurality of second processors to execute a support process according to a processing load caused by the execution of the support process (see for example Swierk, this limitation is disclosed such that multimedia processing control offloads video or audio processing from a CPU to an alternate processor. The offload process is identified with an optimized offload instruction on captured media samples; paragraphs [0020], [0093], [0109]. Metrics describing load are gathered for each of the CPU and the other types of processors of the system, attributed to each of a plurality of application running on the processors; paragraph [0055]).
Savekar in view of Burges, further in view of Hara, further in view of Kerr is analogous art with Swierk because they are from the same field of endeavor, processing management.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method as taught by Savekar in view of Burges, further in view of Hara, further in view of Kerr by identifying an offload processor as taught by Swierk because it would enhance the teaching of Savekar in view of Burges, further in view of Hara, further in view of Kerr with an effective means of balancing CPU load of media samples with quality of user experience (as suggested by Swierk, see for example paragraph [0093]).
As per claim 9, Savekar in view of Burges, further in view of Hara, further in view of Kerr discloses the control device according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), but does not explicitly teach the limitation wherein the one processor acquires the image to be processed from each of a plurality of imaging apparatuses, and distributes the process to a processor specified from a plurality of second processors to execute the support process according to the content of the support process for each of the acquired images to be processed.
However, Swierk discloses the limitation wherein the one processor acquires the image to be processed from each of a plurality of imaging apparatuses, and distributes the process to a processor specified from a plurality of second processors to execute the support process according to the content of the support process for each of the acquired images to be processed (see for example Swierk, this limitation is disclosed such that video images of the system are captured by a camera; paragraphs [0033], [0058]. The first processor oversees the process of decoding video image frames (i.e. one of the two processors acquires an image to be processed which is an object to subjected to a support process that is an imaging support process). Displaying of the video image of a frame is offloaded to the second processor (i.e. distributing a process to one of a plurality of processors (the second processor) to executing the support processes (the displaying) according to content of the support process executed for the image to be processed), paragraph [0041]).
Savekar in view of Burges, further in view of Hara, further in view of Kerr is analogous art with Swierk because they are from the same field of endeavor, processing management.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method as taught by Savekar in view of Burges, further in view of Hara, further in view of Kerr by capturing images with a camera as taught by Swierk because it would enhance the teaching of Savekar in view of Burges, further in view of Hara, further in view of Kerr with an effective means of utilizing information handling system devices (as suggested by Swierk, see for example paragraph [0026]).
As per claim 10, Savekar in view of Burges, further in view of Hara, further in view of Kerr discloses the control device according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), but does not explicitly teach the limitation wherein a plurality of second processors differ from each other in at least one of a communication environment with the control device or a performance.
However, Swierk discloses the limitation wherein the plurality of processors differ from each other in at least one of a communication environment with the control device or a performance (see for example Swierk, this limitation is disclosed such that different processors of the one or more processors have different hardware performance metrics (i.e. the plurality of processors differ from each other in performance); paragraph [0114]).
Savekar in view of Burges, further in view of Hara, further in view of Kerr is analogous art with Swierk because they are from the same field of endeavor, processing management.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method as taught by Savekar in view of Burges, further in view of Hara, further in view of Kerr by identifying an offload processor having performance metrics as taught by Swierk because it would enhance the teaching of Savekar in view of Burges, further in view of Hara, further in view of Kerr with an effective means of balancing CPU load of media samples with quality of user experience (as suggested by Swierk, see for example paragraph [0093]).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Savekar (U.S. 2005/0093885) in view of Burges (U.S. 5,727,081), further in view of Hara (U.S. 2009/0272907), further in view of Kerr (Modeling GPU-CPU Workloads and Systems) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Meng et al. (U.S. 2023/0326204) (Hereinafter Meng).
As per claim 7, Savekar in view of Burges, further in view of Hara, further in view of Kerr discloses the control device according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), but does not explicitly teach the limitation wherein one processor controls a time when a plurality of second processors execute a support process according to the content of the support process executed for an image to be processed.
However, Meng discloses the limitation wherein one processor controls a time when a plurality of second processors execute a support process according to the content of the support process executed for an image to be processed (see for example Meng, this limitation is disclosed such that a first processor device determines an offloading interval, identifying a period of time to capture images and send them to a server [processor device] in an offload; clm.16 and associated text, paragraph [0038]-[0039]).
Savekar in view of Burges, further in view of Hara, further in view of Kerr is analogous art with Meng because they are from the same field of endeavor, processing offload.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method as taught by Savekar in view of Burges, further in view of Hara, further in view of Kerr by determining an interval time for offload as taught by Meng because it would enhance the teaching of Savekar in view of Burges, further in view of Hara, further in view of Kerr with an effective means of determining the optimal offloading periodic frame position (as suggested by Meng, see for example paragraph [0039]).
Claims 8 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Savekar (U.S. 2005/0093885) in view of Burges (U.S. 5,727,081), further in view of Hara (U.S. 2009/0272907), further in view of Kerr (Modeling GPU-CPU Workloads and Systems) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Westphal et al. (U.S. 2001/0016056) (Hereinafter Westphal).
As per claim 8, Savekar in view of Burges, further in view of Hara, further in view of Kerr discloses the control device according to claim 1, wherein the one processor acquires the image to be processed for each process in a series of a plurality of processes, and distributes the process to one of the plurality of second processors to execute the support process for each of the images to be processed (see for example Savekar, this limitation is disclosed such that the process is for pictured coded and decoded as a video sequence (i.e. the image to be processed for each process is acquired in a series of a plurality of processes); paragraphs [0029], [0033]).
Savekar in view of Burges, further in view of Hara, further in view of Kerr does not explicitly teach acquiring from capture of a medical image to a diagnosis of the medical image.
However, Westphal discloses acquiring from capture of a medical image to a diagnosis of the medical image (see for example Westphal, this limitation is disclosed such that a processor is programmed with a medical image processing and diagnosis software, receiving and displaying medical image data; Abstract, paragraphs [0007]-[0008]).
Savekar in view of Burges, further in view of Hara, further in view of Kerr is analogous art with Westphal because they are from the same field of endeavor, processing management.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method as taught by Savekar in view of Burges, further in view of Hara, further in view of Kerr by utilizing image processing and diagnosis as taught by Westphal because it would enhance the teaching of Savekar in view of Burges, further in view of Hara, further in view of Kerr with an effective means of providing mobile processing of data (as suggested by Westphal, see for example paragraph [0007]).
As per claim 11, Savekar in view of Burges, further in view of Hara, further in view of Kerr discloses the control device according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), but does not explicitly teach a mobile medical imaging apparatus comprising: a power source that supplies power to the processors of a control device.
However, Westphal discloses a mobile medical imaging apparatus comprising: a power source that supplies power to the processors of a control device (see for example Westphal, this limitation is disclosed such that the device for processing and diagnosing medical image data is a mobile device; paragraphs [0007]-[0008]. A power source connected via a power supply proved power to the mobile image device and its processor; paragraph [0030])
Savekar in view of Burges, further in view of Hara, further in view of Kerr is analogous art with Westphal because they are from the same field of endeavor, processing management.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method as taught by Savekar in view of Burges, further in view of Hara, further in view of Kerr by utilizing image processing and diagnosis as taught by Westphal because it would enhance the teaching of Savekar in view of Burges, further in view of Hara, further in view of Kerr with an effective means of providing mobile processing of data with easy-to-use equipment design (as suggested by Westphal, see for example paragraph [0030]).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Savekar (U.S. 2005/0093885) in view of Burges (U.S. 5,727,081), further in view of Hara (U.S. 2009/0272907), further in view of Kerr (Modeling GPU-CPU Workloads and Systems) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Anand et al. (U.S. 2013/0294585) (Hereinafter Anand).
As per claim 15, Savekar in view of Burges, further in view of Hara, further in view of Kerr discloses the control device according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), but does not explicitly teach the limitation wherein a diagnosis support process includes a diagnosis support process for supporting interpretation of a position or a state of a surgical tool in an image, a diagnosis support process corresponding to a part to be imaged, or a diagnosis support process for supporting interpretation of lesions.
However, Anand discloses teach the limitation wherein a diagnosis support process includes a diagnosis support process for supporting interpretation of a position or a state of a surgical tool in an image, a diagnosis support process corresponding to a part to be imaged, or a diagnosis support process for supporting interpretation of lesions (see for example Anand, this limitation is disclosed such that an image processor connected to a control device captures an image of a patient positioned with respect to the medical imaging system so that an operator can capture the image of the selected body part that needs to be diagnosed (i.e. a diagnosis support process corresponding to a part to be imaged); paragraph [0021]).
Savekar in view of Burges, further in view of Hara, further in view of Kerr is analogous art with Anand because they are from the same field of endeavor, processing management.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method as taught by Savekar in view of Burges, further in view of Hara, further in view of Kerr by an operator positioning with respect to an imaging system as taught by Westphal because it would enhance the teaching of Savekar in view of Burges, further in view of Hara, further in view of Kerr with an effective means of instructing an image capturing unit to capture an image of a selected part (as suggested by Anand, see for example paragraph [0021]).
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 JONATHAN R LABUD whose telephone number is (571)270-5174. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 10am-4pm.
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, APRIL BLAIR can be reached at (571)270-1014. 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.
/J.R.L/ Examiner, Art Unit 2196
/APRIL Y BLAIR/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2196