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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the following must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s).
A. a microscope or endoscope as specified in claims 17-30
No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 25 and 28-30 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 25 recites “wherein the at least one transformation rule applied by the processor depends on the data points which it affects such that visual imaging errors such as aberrations or distortions are corrected by the image-post-processing”. The use of exemplary language “such as” creates confusion as to whether the narrower range of “aberrations or distortions” is required by the claim. For purposes of examination, this is interpreted as wherein the at least one transformation rule applied by the processor depends on the data points which it affects such that visual imaging errors are corrected by the image-post-processing.
Claim 28 recites “the respective segment” in lines 2-3 and 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of examination, the first recitation in lines 2-3 is interpreted as a respective segment.
The term “complex” in claim 29 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “complex” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Paragraph [0051] provides examples of complex information, however, there is no disclosure how these examples are determined to be complex. Therefore, the limitation of complex information is indefinite. Perhaps Applicant may want to include the limitations of claim 30 into claim 29 to define that the complex information is at least one of: a hemoglobin value, a hematoctrit value, or an oxygen saturation.
Claim 30 recites “wherein the extracted complex information is at least one of: a hemoglobin value, a hematoctrit value, or an oxygen saturation”. It is unclear whether it is possible to extract a hemoglobin value, a hematoctrit value, and an oxygen saturation from image captured with a microscope and an endoscope. Paragraph [0053] discloses that the method in Figs. 3 can be implemented in devices such as microscopes, endoscopes, 3D video glasses, camera devices or the like. However, it is not apparent that it is possible, for example, to extract a hemoglobin value, a hematoctrit value, and an oxygen saturation from image captured with any camera device that is included as one of the examples in paragraph [0053]. Similar reasoning applies as to whether it is possible to extract a hemoglobin value, a hematoctrit value, and an oxygen saturation from image captured with a microscope and an endoscope.
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 17-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Under Step 1, claims 17-30 recite a microscope or endoscope and, therefore, is a machine.
Under Step 2A prong 1, claim 17 recites
A microscope or endoscope, comprising: a transformation device including a processor configured to:
apply a transformation to a data field, whereby data points of an image captured with the microscope or endoscope are transformed during image post-processing using at least one transformation rule that:
divides the data field into multiple segments;
tests each data point of the data field to be transformed for determining in which segment of the data field in which the respective data point is arranged,
selects the at least one transformation rule depending based on the determined segment,
applies the selected at least one transformation rule for transforming the respective data point; and
wherein applying the at least one transformation rule to the data points of the data field results in at least one of (i) correction of geometric imaging errors,(ii) correction of color-related imaging errors, or (iii) correction of brightness of the image captured with the microscope or endoscope, respectively, such that a corrected image is produced by the transformation device during image post- processing.
The above underlined limitations of transforming input data using at least one transformation rule amounts to processing mathematical relationships/calculations that could be practically performed in the human mind and falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” and/or “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. The step of “apply a transformation” is a process that under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, other than reciting “a transformation device including a processor”, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the human mind. For example, but for the “a transformation device including a processor” language, the claim encompasses manually dividing a domain of possible input values into segments, determining which segment an input value is located and performing interpolation using interpolation value coefficients of the segment where the input value is located as described in at least paragraphs [0033, 0036-0038 and 0040] with or without the use of pen and paper. Accordingly, the claim is directed to recite an abstract idea.
Under step 2A prong 2, the claim recites the following additional elements: a microscope or endoscope, comprising: a transformation device including a processor configured to; and an image captured with the microscope or endoscope. However, the additional elements of “a transformation device including a processor” is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer including a processor for performing a series of operations) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions using a generic computer component or merely as a tool to implement the abstract idea. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f) for more information. The additional elements of “an image captured with the microscope or endoscope” is merely generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use by limiting the inputs for the transformation to a particular source and type of data (i.e., an image captured with a microscope or an endoscope). See MPEP 2106.05(h) for more information. The additional elements do not, individually or in combination, integrate the exception into a practical application. Accordingly, the claim is not integrated into a practical application.
Under step 2B, claim 17 does not include additional elements that, individually or in combination, are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of “a transformation device including a processor” is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer including a processor for performing a series of operations) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions using a generic computer component or merely as a tool to implement the abstract idea. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f) for more information. The additional elements of “an image captured with the microscope or endoscope” is merely generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use by limiting the inputs for the transformation to a particular source and type of data (i.e., an image captured with a microscope or an endoscope). See MPEP 2106.05(h) for more information. The claim does not recite additional elements that alone or in combination amount to an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Under step 2A prong 1, claims 18-28 recite the same abstract idea as claim 1 by reason of dependence. Further, claims 18-28 recite further details of the abstract idea of the transformation rule, the data field, and the transformation which falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” and/or “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. In particular claims 18-28 do not include additional elements that would require further analysis under step 2A prong 2 and step 2B. Accordingly, the claims are directed to recite an abstract idea.
Under Step 2A prong 1, claim 29 recites
A microscope or endoscope, comprising:
a transformation device including a processor configured to:
apply a transformation to a data field, whereby data points of an image captured with the microscope or endoscope are transformed during image post-processing using at least one transformation rule that:
divides the data field into multiple segments,
tests each data point of the data field to be transformed for determining in which segment of the data field the respective data point is arranged,
selects the at least one transformation rule based on the determined segment, and
applies the selected at least one transformation rule for transforming the respective data point; and
wherein applying the at least one transformation rule to the data points of the data field results in an extraction of a complex information from the image captured with the microscope or endoscope, respectively.
The above underlined limitations of transforming input data using at least one transformation rule amounts to processing mathematical relationships/calculations that could be practically performed in the human mind and falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” and/or “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. The step of “apply a transformation” is a process that under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, other than reciting “a transformation device including a processor”, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the human mind. For example, but for the “a transformation device including a processor” language, the claim encompasses manually dividing a domain of possible input values into segments, determining which segment an input value is located and performing interpolation using interpolation value coefficients of the segment where the input value is located as described in at least paragraphs [0033, 0036-0038 and 0040] with or without the use of pen and paper. Accordingly, the claim is directed to recite an abstract idea.
Under step 2A prong 2, the claim recites the following additional elements: a microscope or endoscope, comprising: a transformation device including a processor configured to; and an image captured with the microscope or endoscope. However, the additional elements of “a transformation device including a processor” is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer including a processor for performing a series of operations) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions using a generic computer component or merely as a tool to implement the abstract idea. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f) for more information. The additional elements of “an image captured with the microscope or endoscope” is merely generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use by limiting the inputs for the transformation to a particular source and type of data (i.e., an image captured with a microscope or an endoscope). See MPEP 2106.05(h) for more information. The additional elements do not, individually or in combination, integrate the exception into a practical application. Accordingly, the claim is not integrated into a practical application.
Under step 2B, claim 29 does not include additional elements that, individually or in combination, are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of “a transformation device including a processor” is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer including a processor for performing a series of operations) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions using a generic computer component or merely as a tool to implement the abstract idea. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f) for more information. The additional elements of “an image captured with the microscope or endoscope” is merely generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use by limiting the inputs for the transformation to a particular source and type of data (i.e., an image captured with a microscope or an endoscope). See MPEP 2106.05(h) for more information. The claim does not recite additional elements that alone or in combination amount to an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Under step 2A prong 1, claim 30 recites the same abstract idea as claim 1 by reason of dependence. Accordingly, the claim is directed to recite an abstract idea.
Under step 2A prong 2, claim 30 recites the following additional elements: wherein the extracted complex information is at least one of: a hemoglobin value, a hematoctrit value, or an oxygen saturation. However, the additional elements of “wherein the extracted complex information is at least one of: a hemoglobin value, a hematoctrit value, or an oxygen saturation” does no more than merely generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP 2106.05(h) for more information. The additional elements do not, individually or in combination, integrate the exception into a practical application. Accordingly, the claim is not integrated into a practical application.
Under step 2B, claim 30 does not include additional elements that, individually and in combination, are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of “wherein the extracted complex information is at least one of: a hemoglobin value, a hematoctrit value, or an oxygen saturation” does no more than merely generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP 2106.05(h) for more information. The claim does not recite additional elements that alone or in combination amount to an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
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 17-20, 22-25 and 27-28 are rejected as being unpatentable over Mizoguchi (US 20220012308 A1), in view of Nishide (US 20220293268 A1).
Regarding claim 17, Mizoguchi teaches a transformation device including: a processor configured to apply a transformation to a data field (Mizoguchi Figs. 1-3 and 6 and paragraphs [0002, 0038] “The quadratic function coefficients 14 are data determined by the tone conversion function that corrects (specifically, converts) the tone of an image and the geometrical conversion function that corrects (specifically, transforms) the shape of an image”; transformation - tone conversion/geometrical conversion; data field – x and y axis of Fig. 2; paragraph [0028] “The CPU 111 performs various kinds of processing and control in the data processing apparatus 110 and performs various kinds of image processing including data conversion processing, as will be described later, by executing the data processing programs and the like according to the present embodiment. In the present embodiment, explanation is given on the assumption that the processing of each function unit of the data conversion apparatus 100 shown in FIG. 1A is implemented by the software processing in which the CPU 111 executes the program”; transformation device - data processing apparatus 110; processor - CPU),
whereby data points of an image captured (Mizoguchi Figs. 1-3 and 6 and paragraph [0038] “The quadratic function coefficients 14 are data determined by the tone conversion function that corrects (specifically, converts) the tone of an image and the geometrical conversion function that corrects (specifically, transforms) the shape of an image”; paragraph [0043] “the interpolation computation unit 104 calculates a segment, to be described later, and finds a quadratic approximation curve based on the segment and the middle points M1, M2, and generates interpolation output data Y0 as the output data 15 by performing interpolation processing using the quadratic approximation curve”; at least one transformation rule – quadratic approximation/interpolation; paragraph [0027] “the communication I/F 114 receives image data and the like sent from the imaging device 130 or the network 131, the image data is stored temporarily in the RAM 112 under the control of the CPU 111. Then, various kinds of image processing and the like are performed for the image data by the CPU 111 as needed”),
divides the data field into multiple segments (Mizoguchi Figs. 2-3 and 6 and paragraphs [0040-0041, 0043-0046] segments – grid interval or segments),
tests each data point of the data field to be transformed for determining in which segment of the data field the respective data point is arranged (Mizoguchi paragraphs [0043-0046] “Further, the interpolation computation unit 104 calculates a segment … The quadratic approximation curve is, in the interpolation range A in FIG. 2, a curve that passes through the middle point M1 between Y1 and Y2 and the middle point M2 between Y2 and Y3 and which is tangent to a segment (Y1-Y2) connecting Y1 and Y2 and a segment (Y2-Y3) connecting Y2 and Y3”), and
selects the at least one transformation rule based on the determined segment and applies the selected at least one transformation rule for transforming the respective data point (Mizoguchi paragraph [0043] “the interpolation computation unit 104 calculates a segment, to be described later, and finds a quadratic approximation curve based on the segment and the middle points M1, M2, and generates interpolation output data Y0 as the output data 15 by performing interpolation processing using the quadratic approximation curve”);and
wherein applying the at least one transformation rule to the data points of the data field results in at least one of (i) correction of geometric imaging errors,(ii) correction of color-related imaging errors, or (iii) correction of brightness of the image captured (Mizoguchi paragraph [0038] “The quadratic function coefficients 14 are data determined by the tone conversion function that corrects (specifically, converts) the tone of an image and the geometrical conversion function that corrects (specifically, transforms) the shape of an image”).
Mizoguchi does not explicitly teach a microscope or endoscope comprising: a transformation device including: a processor configured to apply a transformation to a data field, whereby data points of an image captured with the microscope or endoscope are transformed during image post-processing using at least one transformation rule; and wherein applying the at least one transformation rule to the data points of the data field results in at least one of (i) correction of geometric imaging errors,(ii) correction of color-related imaging errors, or (iii) correction of brightness of the image captured with the microscope or endoscope.
However, on the same field of endeavor, Nishide discloses an endoscope system comprising a transformation device including: a processor configured to apply a transformation to a data field, whereby data of an image captured with the microscope or endoscope are transformed during image post-processing; and wherein applying the transformation the data results in at least one of (i) correction of geometric imaging errors,(ii) correction of color-related imaging errors, or (iii) correction of brightness of the image captured with the microscope or endoscope (Nishide Figs. 1-2 and paragraphs [0025 and 0042]; claim 1; endoscope – endoscope system).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to modify Mizoguchi using Nishide and configure the apparatus of Mizoguchi as part of an endoscope system that performs image processing to image data captured by the endoscope system in order to provide a diagnostic system used for examining the inside of lumens such as esophagi and intestines of humans (Nishide paragraph [0002]).
Therefore, the combination of Mizoguchi as modified in view of Nishide teaches a microscope or endoscope comprising: a transformation device including: a processor configured to apply a transformation to a data field, whereby data points of an image captured with the microscope or endoscope are transformed during image post-processing using at least one transformation rule; and wherein applying the at least one transformation rule to the data points of the data field results in at least one of (i) correction of geometric imaging errors,(ii) correction of color-related imaging errors, or (iii) correction of brightness of the image captured with the microscope or endoscope.
Regarding claim 18, Mizoguchi as modified in view of Nishide teaches all the limitations of claim 17 as stated above. Further, Mizoguchi as modified in view of Nishide teaches wherein the at least one transformation rule applied by the processor is given by at least one polynomial (Mizoguchi paragraph [0044] at least formula (1) is a quadratic polynomial).
Regarding claim 19, Mizoguchi as modified in view of Nishide teaches all the limitations of claim 17 as stated above. Further, Mizoguchi as modified in view of Nishide teaches wherein boundaries of said segments are described by at least one function (Mizoguchi paragraphs [0044-0046 and 0050-0053]).
Regarding claim 20, Mizoguchi as modified in view of Nishide teaches all the limitations of claim 18 as stated above. Further, Mizoguchi as modified in view of Nishide teaches wherein the at least one function describing the boundaries of the segments are polynomials (Mizoguchi paragraphs [0044-0046]).
Regarding claim 22, Mizoguchi as modified in view of Nishide teaches all the limitations of claim 19 as stated above. Further, Mizoguchi as modified in view of Nishide teaches wherein the processor is configured to apply an interpolation between segment boundary values of boundaries of the segments, if the respective data point to be transformed is located between the boundaries of the segments (Mizoguchi Fig. 2 and paragraphs [0043-0046]).
Regarding claim 23, Mizoguchi as modified in view of Nishide teaches all the limitations of claim 17 as stated above. Further, Mizoguchi as modified in view of Nishide teaches wherein the data field to which said transformation is applied to by the processor is at least two-dimensional (Mizoguchi Figs. 2-3 and 6).
Regarding claim 24, Mizoguchi as modified in view of Nishide teaches all the limitations of claim 17 as stated above. Further, Mizoguchi as modified in view of Nishide teaches wherein the transformation applied by the processor to the data field does not change a dimension of the data field such that metadata of the captured image are obtained (Mizoguchi paragraphs [0002, 0038, 0049] “The uneven grid interval such as this is suitable to the tone conversion function and so on whose nonlinearity is strong”; tone conversion does not adjust a dimension of the data field).
Regarding claim 25, Mizoguchi as modified in view of Nishide teaches all the limitations of claim 17 as stated above. Further, Mizoguchi as modified in view of Nishide teaches wherein the at least one transformation rule applied by the processor depends on the data points which it affects such that visual imaging errors such as aberrations or distortions are corrected by the image-post-processing (Mizoguchi paragraphs [0002, 0038] “The input data 10 is image data, data of luminance of an image, coordinates and the like. The quadratic function coefficients 14 are data determined by the tone conversion function that corrects (specifically, converts) the tone of an image and the geometrical conversion function that corrects (specifically, transforms) the shape of an image”; geometrical conversion corrects visual imaging errors such as aberrations or distortions).
Regarding claim 27, Mizoguchi as modified in view of Nishide teaches all the limitations of claim 22 as stated above. Further, Mizoguchi as modified in view of Nishide teaches wherein said interpolation applied by the processor between the segment boundary values of the boundaries of the segments is at least one of linear, bilinear, trilinear, bicubic, polynomial, or performed according to a nearest neighbor method (Mizoguchi Fig. 2 and paragraphs [0042-0044] “Here, for example, in a case where the input data 10 is XI , the closest updating reference data 21 corresponding to the data XI is Y2 and the two pieces (before and after Y2) of the updating reference data 21 in the vicinity of the Y2 as a center are Y1 and Y3”; formula (1-4) uses Y1, Y2 and Y3 to perform the quadratic polynomial interpolation).
Regarding claim 28, Mizoguchi as modified in view of Nishide teaches all the limitations of claim 22 as stated above. Further, Mizoguchi as modified in view of Nishide teaches wherein said interpolation applied by the processor comprises a subdivision of the respective segment into interpolation points, and wherein a value which corresponds to a transformation value of the nearest interpolation point is selected as a transformation value of the respective data point in the respective segment (Mizoguchi Fig. 6 and paragraphs [0060-0061] “in a case where the second reference address 32 indicates the interpolation range B2, the updating reference data 21 is Y2, Y3’, and Y4’. Similarly, in a case where the second reference address 32 indicates the interpolation range B3, the updating reference data 21 is Y3’, Y4’, and Y5’. Similarly, in a case where the second reference address 32 indicates the interpolation range B4, the updating reference data 21 is Y4’, Y5’, and Y6’; the segment beginning at X3 are sub-divided into smaller sub-intervals Y2’-Y3’, Y3’-Y4’ and Y4’-Y5’ and at least when the interpolation range B2 the nearest interpolation point is Y3’, and Y4’).
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mizoguchi in view of Nishide as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Cevallos (NPL – “Automatic generation of 3D geophysical models using curvatures derived from airborne gravity gradient data”).
Regarding claim 21, Mizoguchi as modified in view of Nishide teaches all the limitations of claim 17 as stated above. Further, Mizoguchi as modified in view of Nishide teaches wherein the processor is configured to determine the respective segment belonging to one said data point by finding those (Mizoguchi Fig. 2 and paragraphs [0042-0044]).
Mizoguchi does not explicitly teach equipotential surfaces.
However, on the same field of endeavor, Cevallos discloses performing image processing on equipotential surfaces (Cevallos abstract, page 5 modeling section).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to modify Mizoguchi in view of Nishide using Cevallos and apply the method on a data field with segments having equipotential surfaces in order to be able to perform 3D interpolation (Cevallos abstract and page 7 discussion section).
Therefore, the combination of Mizoguchi as modified in view of Nishide and Parker teaches wherein the processor is configured to determine the respective segment belonging to one said data point by finding those equipotential surfaces, between which the respective data point is located.
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mizoguchi in view of Nishide as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Schutte et al. (US 20160088194 A1), hereinafter Schutte.
Regarding claim 26, Mizoguchi as modified in view of Nishide teaches all the limitations of claim 17 as stated above.
Mizoguchi does not explicitly teach wherein the at least one transformation rule applied by the processor does not depend on the data points which it affects such that at least one of location-based color corrections or location-dependent brightness corrections are performed by the image-post-processing.
However, on the same field of endeavor, Schutte discloses a transformation which does not depend on the data points which it affects such that at least one of location-based color corrections or location-dependent brightness corrections are performed by image-post-processing (Schutte Figs. 3a-3b and paragraph [0032]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to modify Mizoguchi in view of Nishide using Schutte and apply the method for performing location-based color correction in addition to performing geometric and tone correction as part of processing a video stream (i.e., a sequence of images captured by the endoscope) in order to reduce artifacts that would otherwise be disturbing during video display (Schutte paragraph [0010]).
Therefore, the combination of Mizoguchi as modified in view of Nishide and Schutte teaches wherein the at least one transformation rule applied by the processor does not depend on the data points which it affects such that at least one of location-based color corrections or location-dependent brightness corrections are performed by the image-post-processing.
Claims 29-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mizoguchi in view of Nishide and Parker et al. (US 20080132771 A1), hereinafter Parker.
Regarding claim 29, Mizoguchi teaches a transformation device including a processor configured to: apply a transformation to a data field (Mizoguchi Figs. 1-3 and 6 and paragraphs [0002, 0038] “The quadratic function coefficients 14 are data determined by the tone conversion function that corrects (specifically, converts) the tone of an image and the geometrical conversion function that corrects (specifically, transforms) the shape of an image”; transformation - tone conversion/geometrical conversion; data field – x and y axis of Fig. 2; paragraph [0028] “The CPU 111 performs various kinds of processing and control in the data processing apparatus 110 and performs various kinds of image processing including data conversion processing, as will be described later, by executing the data processing programs and the like according to the present embodiment. In the present embodiment, explanation is given on the assumption that the processing of each function unit of the data conversion apparatus 100 shown in FIG. 1A is implemented by the software processing in which the CPU 111 executes the program”; transformation device - data processing apparatus 110; processor - CPU),
whereby data points of an image captured (Mizoguchi Figs. 1-3 and 6 and paragraph [0038] “The quadratic function coefficients 14 are data determined by the tone conversion function that corrects (specifically, converts) the tone of an image and the geometrical conversion function that corrects (specifically, transforms) the shape of an image”; paragraph [0043] “the interpolation computation unit 104 calculates a segment, to be described later, and finds a quadratic approximation curve based on the segment and the middle points M1, M2, and generates interpolation output data Y0 as the output data 15 by performing interpolation processing using the quadratic approximation curve”; at least one transformation rule – quadratic approximation/interpolation; paragraph [0027] “the communication I/F 114 receives image data and the like sent from the imaging device 130 or the network 131, the image data is stored temporarily in the RAM 112 under the control of the CPU 111. Then, various kinds of image processing and the like are performed for the image data by the CPU 111 as needed”),
divides the data field into multiple segments (Mizoguchi Figs. 2-3 and 6 and paragraphs [0040-0041, 0043-0046] segments – grid interval or segments),
tests each data point of the data field to be transformed for determining in which segment of the data field the respective data point is arranged (Mizoguchi paragraphs [0043-0046] “Further, the interpolation computation unit 104 calculates a segment … The quadratic approximation curve is, in the interpolation range A in FIG. 2, a curve that passes through the middle point M1 between Y1 and Y2 and the middle point M2 between Y2 and Y3 and which is tangent to a segment (Y1-Y2) connecting Y1 and Y2 and a segment (Y2-Y3) connecting Y2 and Y3”), and
selects the at least one transformation rule based on the determined segment, and applies the selected at least one transformation rule for transforming the respective data point (Mizoguchi paragraph [0043] “the interpolation computation unit 104 calculates a segment, to be described later, and finds a quadratic approximation curve based on the segment and the middle points M1, M2, and generates interpolation output data Y0 as the output data 15 by performing interpolation processing using the quadratic approximation curve”).
Mizoguchi does not explicitly teach a microscope or endoscope comprising: a transformation device including a processor configured to: apply a transformation to a data field, whereby data points of an image captured with the microscope or endoscope are transformed during image post-processing using at least one transformation rule; and wherein applying the at least one transformation rule to the data points of the data field results in an extraction of a complex information from the image captured with the microscope or endoscope, respectively.
However, on the same field of endeavor, Nishide discloses an endoscope system comprising a transformation device including: a processor configured to apply a transformation to a data field, whereby data of an image captured with the microscope or endoscope are transformed during image post-processing (Nishide Figs. 1-2 and paragraphs [0025 and 0042]; claim 1; endoscope – endoscope system).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to modify Mizoguchi using Nishide and configure the apparatus of Mizoguchi as part of an endoscope system that performs image processing to image data captured by the endoscope system in order to provide a diagnostic system used for examining the inside of lumens such as esophagi and intestines of humans (Nishide paragraph [0002]).
Therefore, the combination of Mizoguchi as modified in view of Nishide teaches a microscope or endoscope comprising: a transformation device including a processor configured to: apply a transformation to a data field, whereby data points of an image captured with the microscope or endoscope are transformed during image post-processing using at least one transformation rule.
Mizoguchi as currently modified in view of Nishide does not explicitly teach wherein applying the at least one transformation rule to the data points of the data field results in an extraction of a complex information from the image captured with the microscope or endoscope, respectively.
However, on the same field of endeavor, Parker discloses using an interpolation method for computing an oxygen saturation value (Parker paragraphs [0018-0019]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to modify Mizoguchi in view of Nishide using Parker and configure the system to use the captured image for measuring/extracting oxygen saturation level in order compute/measure blood oxygen level which may be used for a blood oxygenation monitoring system (Parker paragraphs [0004, 0026]; claim 17).
Therefore, the combination of Mizoguchi as modified in view of Nishide and Parker teaches wherein applying the at least one transformation rule to the data points of the data field results in an extraction of a complex information from the image captured with the microscope or endoscope, respectively.
Regarding claim 30, Mizoguchi as modified in view of Nishide teaches all the limitations of claim 29 as stated above. Further, Mizoguchi as modified in view of Nishide teaches wherein the extracted complex information is at least one of: a hemoglobin value, a hematoctrit value, or an oxygen saturation (Parker paragraphs [0018-0019]).
Response to Arguments
In view of amendments made, the objection to the drawings and the claims has been withdrawn. However, the amendments made raises new objection to the drawings as discussed above.
In view of amendments made, the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of claims 2-3, 5 and 14-16 has been withdrawn. However, the amendments made raises new 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections as discussed above.
Applicant's arguments, see remarks page 8-9, filed 03/09/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim 17 under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the following:
1.) claim 17 is now specifically directed to a microscope or endoscope, which both denote specific structure that is more than merely general linking of the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment and integrates the exception into a practical application in a microscope or endoscope for correcting an image that is produced by the transformation device during image post-processing. Further, claim 17 provides an improvement of relieving the demand on memory and cited paragraph [0006 and 0009] such that the computation can now be performed with a relatively simple FPGA.
Response: Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claim does not recite a specific machine. The only structure of the microscope or endoscope that sis recited in the claim is a generic transformation device including a processor configured to implement the abstract idea such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions using a generic computer component or merely as a tool to implement the abstract idea. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f) for more information. The additional elements of “a microscope or endoscope” and applying the transformation on “an image captured with the microscope or endoscope” are merely generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use by limiting the inputs for the transformation to a particular source and type of data (i.e., an image captured with a microscope or an endoscope). See MPEP 2106.05(h) for more information. The additional elements do not, individually or in combination, integrate the exception into a practical application. Accordingly, the claim is not integrated into a practical application. Furthermore, Applicant is arguing unclaimed features. The claim does not recite any FPGA implementation. Furthermore, the alleged improvement of relieving the demand on memory appears to be a result of the abstract idea of having transformation rules that are defined by polynomial functions and not from any additional elements of combination of additional elements. Further, this concept is not reflected in claim 17. See MPEP 2106.05(a): “It is important to note, the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement.”
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks page 9-11, filed 03/09/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 17 under 35 U.S.C. 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of amendments made and newly found prior art references.
Applicant amended claim 17 to recite a microscope or endoscope and that the transformation is applied to data points of an image captured with the microscope or endoscope and argues the following:
1.) While Mizoguchi at [0043] suggests that interpolation computation unit 104 calculates a segment that is to be later described and finds a quadratic curve based on the segment, this does not specifically suggest applying a selected transformation rule for transforming a respective data point in a particular segment wherein an application of the transformation rule results in correction of geometric image errors, color-related imaging errors, or brightness.
Response: Examiner respectfully disagrees. As disclosed in at least Fig. 2 and paragraphs [0043-0046] of Mizoguchi, each segment has a different quadratic interpolation curve expressed by formulas (1-4), therefore, a specific quadratic interpolation curve expressed by formulas (1-4) including the specific quadratic function coefficients for the curve are selected and applied based on where the input data is located which fairly corresponds to the claimed “tests each data point of the data field to be transformed for determining in which segment of the data field the respective data point is arranged, selects the at least one transformation rule based on the determined segment, and applies the selected at least one transformation rule for transforming the respective data point”. Further, paragraph [0038] discloses that the quadratic function coefficients are data determined by the tone conversion function that corrects (specifically, converts) the tone of an image and the geometrical conversion function that corrects (specifically, transforms) the shape of an image. Therefore, applying the quadratic interpolation with the specific quadratic function coefficients results in correction of geometric image errors, color-related imaging errors, or brightness.
Note: Applicant’s amendment to include the features of a microscope or endoscope and that the transformation is applied to data points of an image captured with the microscope or endoscope are not disclosed by Mizoguchi. However, these features are disclosed by Nishide in at least Figs. 1-2 and paragraphs [0025 and 0042]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to combine the teaching of Mizoguchi and Nishide and configure the apparatus of Mizoguchi as part of an endoscope system that performs image processing to image data captured by the endoscope system in order to provide a diagnostic system used for examining the inside of lumens such as esophagi and intestines of humans (Nishide paragraph [0002]).
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 Carlo Waje whose telephone number is (571)272-5767. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00-6:00 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 Trujillo can be reached at (571) 272-3677. 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.
/Carlo Waje/Examiner, Art Unit 2151 (571)272-5767
Prosecution Insights