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 Amendment
Claims 1-20 are currently pending. Applicant’s amendments to specification, drawings, and claims have satisfied all previously held objections.
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 1-3, 5-6, 8-10, 12-13, 15-16, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Levin (WO 2020016886 A1) in view of Jensen (US 20080095306 A1).
With respect to claim 1, Levin teaches a system for measuring light within a boundary of an image comprising:
(a) an instrument configured to capture the image (“receiving an endoscope image from an endoscope” paragraph 0008 line 3); (b) a display (“a user display” paragraph 0025 lines 1-2); (c) a user input device (“configured to receive input from a user control” paragraph 0024 line 3); and (d) a processor (“such as a programmable processor” paragraph 0044 line 14) configured to:
(i) receive the image from the instrument (“receiving an endoscope image from an endoscope” paragraph 0008 line 3);
(ii) obtain a light intensity value of each image pixel (“determining a variance of pixel intensity for each sector” paragraph 0008 lines 11-12) around the boundary of the image (“dividing the edge-rendered mapping into sectors, determining a variance of pixel intensity for each sector”, paragraph 0008 lines 10-12), wherein at least one light illuminator on the instrument (“Situated at the endoscope tip 24 may be several devices, such as a light emitter” paragraph 0023 lines 4-5) stimulates the each image pixel (“pixel saturation may be employed” paragraph 0028 line 7), wherein the each image pixel reflects a magnitude of light that is captured by one or more spotting devices on the instrument (“other methods of analyzing pixels of the image to determine wall proximity may be incorporated. For example, pixel saturation may be employed, as saturation may be indicative of high reflection very close to the endoscope light” paragraph 0028 lines 6-8, camera as spotting device);
(iii) create a pixel intensity map along the boundary of the image that relates to the light intensity value of the each image pixel (“dividing the edge-rendered mapping into sectors, determining a variance of pixel intensity for each sector”, paragraph 0008 lines 10-12)
Levin does not teach presenting a graphical user interface via the display based on the pixel intensity map. However, Jensen teaches presenting a graphical user interface via the display based on a pixel intensity map (“One method by which the pixels of an image can be assigned color values for display purposes is to map each pixel intensity value, or brightness, to a particular shade of gray, based on window and level parameter settings” paragraph 0009 lines 1-4 and FIGs. 2-7 user interfaces and “In FIG. 2, the user interface 200 includes a trigonal display field 202 having apices 205 (top vertex, corresponding to a value denoted W.sub.1), 210 (lower right-hand vertex) and 215 (lower left-hand vertex).” Paragraph 0047 1-4).
Jensen is analogous art in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Jensen is directed towards displaying and generating pixel intensity maps (“One method by which the pixels of an image can be assigned color values for display purposes is to map each pixel intensity value, or brightness, to a particular shade of gray, based on window and level parameter settings” paragraph 0009 lines 1-4). A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention could have reasoned that combining Levin and Jensen by incorporating Jensen’s GUI onto the user display of Levin would lead to enabling greater customization of the data view, by expanding the “capability for visualization and selection of parameters for displaying images, responsive to user input instructions” (paragraph 0024 lines 12-14), while restricting user input to valid parameters such that valid deterministic results are outputted by the system (“The disclosed user interfaces represent the full range of appropriate or legitimate parametric value pairs for WINDOW/LEVEL selection, and do not allow any invalid parametric value pairs to be selected” paragraph 0080 lines 1-4 and “can lead to invalid or non-deterministic results” paragraph 0050 lines 11-12 ). Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Levin and Jensen by incorporating Jensen’s GUI onto the user display of Levin, with the expectation that doing so would lead to enabling greater customization of the data view, by expanding the “capability for visualization and selection of parameters for displaying images, responsive to user input instructions” (paragraph 0024 lines 12-14), while restricting user input to valid parameters such that valid deterministic results are outputted by the system (“The disclosed user interfaces represent the full range of appropriate or legitimate parametric value pairs for WINDOW/LEVEL selection, and do not allow any invalid parametric value pairs to be selected” paragraph 0080 lines 1-4 and “can lead to invalid or non-deterministic results” paragraph 0050 lines 11-12 ).
With respect to claim 2, Levin and Jensen teach the system of claim 1. Levin further teaches the system of Claim 1, wherein the image from the instrument is of an anatomical structure (“receiving an endoscope image from an endoscope in a body lumen” paragraph 0008 line 3).
With respect to claim 3, Levin and Jensen teach the system of claim 1. Jensen further teaches the system of Claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to execute an object recognition process to identify the anatomical feature within the one or more images (“Also, within the displayed triangles 200 through 600 the value pairs that typically represent anatomy types, such as, for example, the loci 250 and 350 corresponding to SKIN, or the loci 255 and 355 relating to BONE, of FIGS. 2 and 3, respectively, etc., may be indicated with one or more of: a point; a text label, an area, a pictographic display, an icon, or any other mode for indicating a particular position within the displayed shape to the clinician.” Paragraph 0089 lines 1-8).
With respect to claim 5, Levin and Jensen teach the system of claim 1. Levin further teaches the system of Claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to determine a distance of the boundary relative to the instrument taking the image (“Upon receiving the endoscope image 120, the computer controller 40 determines whether features of the image indicate that the endoscope tip is closer than a preset threshold to a wall of the body lumen.” Paragraph 0028 lines 1-3).
With respect to claim 6, Levin and Jensen teach the system of claim 5. Levin further teaches the system of Claim 5, wherein the pixel intensity map displaying low light intensity values indicates the boundary of the image is distal to the instrument taking the image (“pixel saturation may be employed, as saturation may be indicative of high reflection very close to the endoscope light” paragraph 0028 lines 7-8, saturation level indicative of reflection/distance), wherein the pixel intensity map displaying moderate light intensity values indicates the boundary of the image is at a desired distance from the instrument (“pixel saturation may be employed, as saturation may be indicative of high reflection very close to the endoscope light” paragraph 0028 lines 7-8, saturation level indicative of reflection/distance), wherein the pixel intensity map displaying high light intensity values indicates the boundary of the image is proximate to the instrument taking the image (“pixel saturation may be employed, as saturation may be indicative of high reflection very close to the endoscope light” paragraph 0028 lines 7-8, saturation level indicative of reflection/distance).
Jensen is analogous art in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Jensen is directed towards displaying and generating pixel intensity maps (“One method by which the pixels of an image can be assigned color values for display purposes is to map each pixel intensity value, or brightness, to a particular shade of gray, based on window and level parameter settings” paragraph 0009 lines 1-4). A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention could have reasoned that combining Levin and Jensen by incorporating Jensen’s GUI onto the user display of Levin would lead to enabling greater customization of the data view, by expanding the “capability for visualization and selection of parameters for displaying images, responsive to user input instructions” (paragraph 0024 lines 12-14), while restricting user input to valid parameters such that valid deterministic results are outputted by the system (“The disclosed user interfaces represent the full range of appropriate or legitimate parametric value pairs for WINDOW/LEVEL selection, and do not allow any invalid parametric value pairs to be selected” paragraph 0080 lines 1-4 and “can lead to invalid or non-deterministic results” paragraph 0050 lines 11-12 ). Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Levin and Jensen by incorporating Jensen’s GUI onto the user display of Levin, with the expectation that doing so would lead to enabling greater customization of the data view, by expanding the “capability for visualization and selection of parameters for displaying images, responsive to user input instructions” (paragraph 0024 lines 12-14), while restricting user input to valid parameters such that valid deterministic results are outputted by the system (“The disclosed user interfaces represent the full range of appropriate or legitimate parametric value pairs for WINDOW/LEVEL selection, and do not allow any invalid parametric value pairs to be selected” paragraph 0080 lines 1-4 and “can lead to invalid or non-deterministic results” paragraph 0050 lines 11-12 ).
With respect to claim 8, Levin teaches a method of measuring light within a boundary of an image comprising, by a processor:
(a) receiving the image from an instrument (“receiving an endoscope image from an endoscope” paragraph 0008 line 3);
(b) obtaining a light intensity value of each image pixel (“determining a variance of pixel intensity for each sector” paragraph 0008 lines 11-12) around the boundary of the image (“dividing the edge-rendered mapping into sectors, determining a variance of pixel intensity for each sector”, paragraph 0008 lines 10-12), wherein at least one light illuminator on the instrument (“Situated at the endoscope tip 24 may be several devices, such as a light emitter” paragraph 0023 lines 4-5) stimulates the each image pixel (“pixel saturation may be employed” paragraph 0028 line 7), wherein the each image pixel reflects a magnitude of light that is captured by one or more spotting devices on the instrument (“other methods of analyzing pixels of the image to determine wall proximity may be incorporated. For example, pixel saturation may be employed, as saturation may be indicative of high reflection very close to the endoscope light” paragraph 0028 lines 6-8, camera as spotting device);
(c) creating a pixel intensity map along the boundary of the image that relates to the light intensity value of the each image pixel (“dividing the edge-rendered mapping into sectors, determining a variance of pixel intensity for each sector”, paragraph 0008 lines 10-12)
Levin does not teach presenting a graphical user interface via the display based on the pixel intensity map. However, Jensen teaches presenting a graphical user interface via the display based on a pixel intensity map (“One method by which the pixels of an image can be assigned color values for display purposes is to map each pixel intensity value, or brightness, to a particular shade of gray, based on window and level parameter settings” paragraph 0009 lines 1-4 and FIGs. 2-7 user interfaces and “In FIG. 2, the user interface 200 includes a trigonal display field 202 having apices 205 (top vertex, corresponding to a value denoted W.sub.1), 210 (lower right-hand vertex) and 215 (lower left-hand vertex).” Paragraph 0047 1-4).
Jensen is analogous art in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Jensen is directed towards displaying and generating pixel intensity maps (“One method by which the pixels of an image can be assigned color values for display purposes is to map each pixel intensity value, or brightness, to a particular shade of gray, based on window and level parameter settings” paragraph 0009 lines 1-4). A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention could have reasoned that combining Levin and Jensen by incorporating Jensen’s GUI onto the user display of Levin would lead to enabling greater customization of the data view, by expanding the “capability for visualization and selection of parameters for displaying images, responsive to user input instructions” (paragraph 0024 lines 12-14), while restricting user input to valid parameters such that valid deterministic results are outputted by the system (“The disclosed user interfaces represent the full range of appropriate or legitimate parametric value pairs for WINDOW/LEVEL selection, and do not allow any invalid parametric value pairs to be selected” paragraph 0080 lines 1-4 and “can lead to invalid or non-deterministic results” paragraph 0050 lines 11-12 ). Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Levin and Jensen by incorporating Jensen’s GUI onto the user display of Levin, with the expectation that doing so would lead to enabling greater customization of the data view, by expanding the “capability for visualization and selection of parameters for displaying images, responsive to user input instructions” (paragraph 0024 lines 12-14), while restricting user input to valid parameters such that valid deterministic results are outputted by the system (“The disclosed user interfaces represent the full range of appropriate or legitimate parametric value pairs for WINDOW/LEVEL selection, and do not allow any invalid parametric value pairs to be selected” paragraph 0080 lines 1-4 and “can lead to invalid or non-deterministic results” paragraph 0050 lines 11-12 ).
With respect to claim 9, Levin and Jensen teach the method of claim 8. Levin further teaches the method of Claim 8, wherein the image from the instrument is of an anatomical structure (“receiving an endoscope image from an endoscope in a body lumen” paragraph 0008 line 3).
With respect to claim 10, Levin and Jensen teach the method of claim 8. Jensen further teaches the method of Claim 8, further comprising executing an object recognition process to identify the anatomical structure within the one or more images (“Also, within the displayed triangles 200 through 600 the value pairs that typically represent anatomy types, such as, for example, the loci 250 and 350 corresponding to SKIN, or the loci 255 and 355 relating to BONE, of FIGS. 2 and 3, respectively, etc., may be indicated with one or more of: a point; a text label, an area, a pictographic display, an icon, or any other mode for indicating a particular position within the displayed shape to the clinician.” Paragraph 0089 lines 1-8).
With respect to claim 12, Levin and Jensen teach the method of claim 8. Levin further teaches the method of Claim 8, wherein the processor determines a distance of the boundary relative to the instrument taking the image (“Upon receiving the endoscope image 120, the computer controller 40 determines whether features of the image indicate that the endoscope tip is closer than a preset threshold to a wall of the body lumen.” Paragraph 0028 lines 1-3).
With respect to claim 13, Levin and Jensen teach the method of claim 12. Levin further teaches the method of claim 12, wherein the pixel intensity map displaying low light intensity values indicates the boundary of the image is distal to the instrument taking the image (“pixel saturation may be employed, as saturation may be indicative of high reflection very close to the endoscope light” paragraph 0028 lines 7-8, saturation level indicative of reflection/distance), wherein the pixel intensity map displaying moderate light intensity values indicates the boundary of the image is at a desired distance from the instrument (“pixel saturation may be employed, as saturation may be indicative of high reflection very close to the endoscope light” paragraph 0028 lines 7-8, saturation level indicative of reflection/distance), wherein the pixel intensity map displaying high light intensity values indicates the boundary of the image is proximate to the instrument taking the image (“pixel saturation may be employed, as saturation may be indicative of high reflection very close to the endoscope light” paragraph 0028 lines 7-8, saturation level indicative of reflection/distance).
Jensen is analogous art in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Jensen is directed towards displaying and generating pixel intensity maps (“One method by which the pixels of an image can be assigned color values for display purposes is to map each pixel intensity value, or brightness, to a particular shade of gray, based on window and level parameter settings” paragraph 0009 lines 1-4). A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention could have reasoned that combining Levin and Jensen by incorporating Jensen’s GUI onto the user display of Levin would lead to enabling greater customization of the data view, by expanding the “capability for visualization and selection of parameters for displaying images, responsive to user input instructions” (paragraph 0024 lines 12-14), while restricting user input to valid parameters such that valid deterministic results are outputted by the system (“The disclosed user interfaces represent the full range of appropriate or legitimate parametric value pairs for WINDOW/LEVEL selection, and do not allow any invalid parametric value pairs to be selected” paragraph 0080 lines 1-4 and “can lead to invalid or non-deterministic results” paragraph 0050 lines 11-12 ). Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Levin and Jensen by incorporating Jensen’s GUI onto the user display of Levin, with the expectation that doing so would lead to enabling greater customization of the data view, by expanding the “capability for visualization and selection of parameters for displaying images, responsive to user input instructions” (paragraph 0024 lines 12-14), while restricting user input to valid parameters such that valid deterministic results are outputted by the system (“The disclosed user interfaces represent the full range of appropriate or legitimate parametric value pairs for WINDOW/LEVEL selection, and do not allow any invalid parametric value pairs to be selected” paragraph 0080 lines 1-4 and “can lead to invalid or non-deterministic results” paragraph 0050 lines 11-12 ).
With respect to claim 15, Levin teaches a system for measuring light within a boundary of an image configured to:
(a) receive the image from a processor that stores the image taken from an instrument (“receiving an endoscope image from an endoscope” paragraph 0008 line 3), wherein the image is of an anatomical structure (“receiving an endoscope image from an endoscope in a body lumen” paragraph 0008 line 3);
(b) obtain a light intensity value of each image pixel (“determining a variance of pixel intensity for each sector” paragraph 0008 lines 11-12) around the boundary of the image stored in the processor (“dividing the edge-rendered mapping into sectors, determining a variance of pixel intensity for each sector”, paragraph 0008 lines 10-12), wherein at least one light illuminator on the instrument (“Situated at the endoscope tip 24 may be several devices, such as a light emitter” paragraph 0023 lines 4-5) stimulates the each image pixel (“pixel saturation may be employed” paragraph 0028 line 7), wherein the each image pixel reflects a magnitude of light that is captured by one or more spotting devices on the instrument (“other methods of analyzing pixels of the image to determine wall proximity may be incorporated. For example, pixel saturation may be employed, as saturation may be indicative of high reflection very close to the endoscope light” paragraph 0028 lines 6-8, camera as spotting device);
(c) receive an output from the processor, wherein the output comprises a pixel intensity map along the boundary of the image that relates to the light intensity value of the each image pixel (“dividing the edge-rendered mapping into sectors, determining a variance of pixel intensity for each sector”, paragraph 0008 lines 10-12); and
Levin does not teach presenting a graphical user interface via the display based on the pixel intensity map. However, Jensen teaches presenting a graphical user interface via the display based on a pixel intensity map (“One method by which the pixels of an image can be assigned color values for display purposes is to map each pixel intensity value, or brightness, to a particular shade of gray, based on window and level parameter settings” paragraph 0009 lines 1-4 and FIGs. 2-7 user interfaces and “In FIG. 2, the user interface 200 includes a trigonal display field 202 having apices 205 (top vertex, corresponding to a value denoted W.sub.1), 210 (lower right-hand vertex) and 215 (lower left-hand vertex).” Paragraph 0047 1-4).
Jensen is analogous art in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Jensen is directed towards displaying and generating pixel intensity maps (“One method by which the pixels of an image can be assigned color values for display purposes is to map each pixel intensity value, or brightness, to a particular shade of gray, based on window and level parameter settings” paragraph 0009 lines 1-4). A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention could have reasoned that combining Levin and Jensen by incorporating Jensen’s GUI onto the user display of Levin would lead to enabling greater customization of the data view, by expanding the “capability for visualization and selection of parameters for displaying images, responsive to user input instructions” (paragraph 0024 lines 12-14), while restricting user input to valid parameters such that valid deterministic results are outputted by the system (“The disclosed user interfaces represent the full range of appropriate or legitimate parametric value pairs for WINDOW/LEVEL selection, and do not allow any invalid parametric value pairs to be selected” paragraph 0080 lines 1-4 and “can lead to invalid or non-deterministic results” paragraph 0050 lines 11-12 ). Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Levin and Jensen by incorporating Jensen’s GUI onto the user display of Levin, with the expectation that doing so would lead to enabling greater customization of the data view, by expanding the “capability for visualization and selection of parameters for displaying images, responsive to user input instructions” (paragraph 0024 lines 12-14), while restricting user input to valid parameters such that valid deterministic results are outputted by the system (“The disclosed user interfaces represent the full range of appropriate or legitimate parametric value pairs for WINDOW/LEVEL selection, and do not allow any invalid parametric value pairs to be selected” paragraph 0080 lines 1-4 and “can lead to invalid or non-deterministic results” paragraph 0050 lines 11-12 ).
With respect to claim 16, Levin and Jensen teach the system of claim 15. Jensen further teaches the system of claim 15, further configured to execute an object recognition process to identify the anatomical structure within the one or more images (“Also, within the displayed triangles 200 through 600 the value pairs that typically represent anatomy types, such as, for example, the loci 250 and 350 corresponding to SKIN, or the loci 255 and 355 relating to BONE, of FIGS. 2 and 3, respectively, etc., may be indicated with one or more of: a point; a text label, an area, a pictographic display, an icon, or any other mode for indicating a particular position within the displayed shape to the clinician.” Paragraph 0089 lines 1-8).
With respect to claim 18, Levin and Jensen teach the system of claim 15. Levin further teaches the system of Claim 15, further configured to determine a distance of the boundary relative to the instrument taking the image (“Upon receiving the endoscope image 120, the computer controller 40 determines whether features of the image indicate that the endoscope tip is closer than a preset threshold to a wall of the body lumen.” Paragraph 0028 lines 1-3).
With respect to claim 19, Levin and Jensen teach the system of claim 18. Levin further teaches the system of claim 18, wherein the pixel intensity map displaying low light intensity values indicates the boundary of the image is distal to the instrument taking the image (“pixel saturation may be employed, as saturation may be indicative of high reflection very close to the endoscope light” paragraph 0028 lines 7-8, saturation level indicative of reflection/distance), wherein the pixel intensity map displaying moderate light intensity values indicates the boundary of the image is at a desired distance from the instrument (“pixel saturation may be employed, as saturation may be indicative of high reflection very close to the endoscope light” paragraph 0028 lines 7-8, saturation level indicative of reflection/distance), wherein the pixel intensity map displaying high light intensity values indicates the boundary of the image is proximate to the instrument taking the image (“pixel saturation may be employed, as saturation may be indicative of high reflection very close to the endoscope light” paragraph 0028 lines 7-8, saturation level indicative of reflection/distance).
Jensen is analogous art in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Jensen is directed towards displaying and generating pixel intensity maps (“One method by which the pixels of an image can be assigned color values for display purposes is to map each pixel intensity value, or brightness, to a particular shade of gray, based on window and level parameter settings” paragraph 0009 lines 1-4). A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention could have reasoned that combining Levin and Jensen by incorporating Jensen’s GUI onto the user display of Levin would lead to enabling greater customization of the data view, by expanding the “capability for visualization and selection of parameters for displaying images, responsive to user input instructions” (paragraph 0024 lines 12-14), while restricting user input to valid parameters such that valid deterministic results are outputted by the system (“The disclosed user interfaces represent the full range of appropriate or legitimate parametric value pairs for WINDOW/LEVEL selection, and do not allow any invalid parametric value pairs to be selected” paragraph 0080 lines 1-4 and “can lead to invalid or non-deterministic results” paragraph 0050 lines 11-12 ). Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Levin and Jensen by incorporating Jensen’s GUI onto the user display of Levin, with the expectation that doing so would lead to enabling greater customization of the data view, by expanding the “capability for visualization and selection of parameters for displaying images, responsive to user input instructions” (paragraph 0024 lines 12-14), while restricting user input to valid parameters such that valid deterministic results are outputted by the system (“The disclosed user interfaces represent the full range of appropriate or legitimate parametric value pairs for WINDOW/LEVEL selection, and do not allow any invalid parametric value pairs to be selected” paragraph 0080 lines 1-4 and “can lead to invalid or non-deterministic results” paragraph 0050 lines 11-12 ).
Claims 4, 11, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Levin and Jensen as applied to claims 1, 8, and 15 , respectfully, above, and further in view of Sekiya (US 6517479 B1).
With respect to claim 4, Levin and Jensen teach the system of claim 1. However, Levin and Jensen do not explicitly teach the system of Claim 1, wherein the light intensity values are averaged to achieve the pixel intensity map.
Sekiya teaches where light intensity values are averaged to achieve a pixel intensity map (“Each intensity may be the output of one picture cell or an average of a group of cells” page 87 col. 18 lines 38-39).
Sekiya is analogous art in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Sekiya is directed towards a stereoscopic endoscope that includes a light transmitter (“It is still a further object of the present invention to provide an improved stereoscopic endoscope which can illuminate the object to be viewed without increasing the diameter of the insertion portion of the stereoscopic endoscope” page 79 col. 2 lines 24-28). A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention could have reasoned that substituting Levin’s variance-based pixel intensity map, in the combined Levin and Jensen system, for Sekiya’s mean-based pixel intensity map would lead to intra-instrument improvements (“In the second method, the calculating device 105, stores standard intensity values for the left and right images when the mirror block 20 is at the standard correct position. The actual intensity values are compared with the standard intensity values, and the mirror block 20 is moved based on a difference between the actual intensity values and the standard intensity values. Then the process is repeated until the two sets of values are the same.” Page 89 col. 21 lines 4-11), allowing for improvements to be made as to the amount of people able to view an image and how quickly that can be accomplished (“It is a further object of the present invention to improve the utility of a stereoscopic endoscope in which the image of the object can be viewed by many people or by a single person, quickly.” Page 79 col. 2 lines 10-13). Therefore, it would have been obvious, for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to substitute Levin’s variance based pixel intensity map, in the combined Levin and Jensen system, for Sekiya’s mean based pixel intensity map, with the expectation that doing so would lead to intra-instrument improvements (“In the second method, the calculating device 105, stores standard intensity values for the left and right images when the mirror block 20 is at the standard correct position. The actual intensity values are compared with the standard intensity values, and the mirror block 20 is moved based on a difference between the actual intensity values and the standard intensity values. Then the process is repeated until the two sets of values are the same.” Page 89 col. 21 lines 4-11), allowing for improvements to be made as to the amount of people able to view an image and how quickly that can be accomplished (“It is a further object of the present invention to improve the utility of a stereoscopic endoscope in which the image of the object can be viewed by many people or by a single person, quickly.” Page 79 col. 2 lines 10-13).
With respect to claim 11, Levin and Jensen teach the method of claim 8. However, Levin and Jensen do not explicitly teach the method of Claim 8, wherein the light intensity values are averaged to achieve the pixel intensity map.
Sekiya teaches where light intensity values are averaged to achieve a pixel intensity map (“Each intensity may be the output of one picture cell or an average of a group of cells” page 87 col. 18 lines 38-39).
Sekiya is analogous art in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Sekiya is directed towards a stereoscopic endoscope that includes a light transmitter (“It is still a further object of the present invention to provide an improved stereoscopic endoscope which can illuminate the object to be viewed without increasing the diameter of the insertion portion of the stereoscopic endoscope” page 79 col. 2 lines 24-28). A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention could have reasoned that substituting Levin’s variance-based pixel intensity map, in the combined Levin and Jensen system, for Sekiya’s mean-based pixel intensity map would lead to intra-instrument improvements (“In the second method, the calculating device 105, stores standard intensity values for the left and right images when the mirror block 20 is at the standard correct position. The actual intensity values are compared with the standard intensity values, and the mirror block 20 is moved based on a difference between the actual intensity values and the standard intensity values. Then the process is repeated until the two sets of values are the same.” Page 89 col. 21 lines 4-11), allowing for improvements to be made as to the amount of people able to view an image and how quickly that can be accomplished (“It is a further object of the present invention to improve the utility of a stereoscopic endoscope in which the image of the object can be viewed by many people or by a single person, quickly.” Page 79 col. 2 lines 10-13). Therefore, it would have been obvious, for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to substitute Levin’s variance based pixel intensity map, in the combined Levin and Jensen system, for Sekiya’s mean based pixel intensity map, with the expectation that doing so would lead to intra-instrument improvements (“In the second method, the calculating device 105, stores standard intensity values for the left and right images when the mirror block 20 is at the standard correct position. The actual intensity values are compared with the standard intensity values, and the mirror block 20 is moved based on a difference between the actual intensity values and the standard intensity values. Then the process is repeated until the two sets of values are the same.” Page 89 col. 21 lines 4-11), allowing for improvements to be made as to the amount of people able to view an image and how quickly that can be accomplished (“It is a further object of the present invention to improve the utility of a stereoscopic endoscope in which the image of the object can be viewed by many people or by a single person, quickly.” Page 79 col. 2 lines 10-13).
With respect to claim 17, Levin and Jensen teach the system of claim 15. However, Levin and Jensen do no teach the system of Claim 15, wherein the light intensity values are averaged to achieve the pixel intensity map.
Sekiya teaches where light intensity values are averaged to achieve a pixel intensity map (“Each intensity may be the output of one picture cell or an average of a group of cells” page 87 col. 18 lines 38-39).
Sekiya is analogous art in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Sekiya is directed towards a stereoscopic endoscope that includes a light transmitter (“It is still a further object of the present invention to provide an improved stereoscopic endoscope which can illuminate the object to be viewed without increasing the diameter of the insertion portion of the stereoscopic endoscope” page 79 col. 2 lines 24-28). A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention could have reasoned that substituting Levin’s variance-based pixel intensity map, in the combined Levin and Jensen system, for Sekiya’s mean-based pixel intensity map would lead to intra-instrument improvements (“In the second method, the calculating device 105, stores standard intensity values for the left and right images when the mirror block 20 is at the standard correct position. The actual intensity values are compared with the standard intensity values, and the mirror block 20 is moved based on a difference between the actual intensity values and the standard intensity values. Then the process is repeated until the two sets of values are the same.” Page 89 col. 21 lines 4-11), allowing for improvements to be made as to the amount of people able to view an image and how quickly that can be accomplished (“It is a further object of the present invention to improve the utility of a stereoscopic endoscope in which the image of the object can be viewed by many people or by a single person, quickly.” Page 79 col. 2 lines 10-13). Therefore, it would have been obvious, for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to substitute Levin’s variance based pixel intensity map, in the combined Levin and Jensen system, for Sekiya’s mean based pixel intensity map, with the expectation that doing so would lead to intra-instrument improvements (“In the second method, the calculating device 105, stores standard intensity values for the left and right images when the mirror block 20 is at the standard correct position. The actual intensity values are compared with the standard intensity values, and the mirror block 20 is moved based on a difference between the actual intensity values and the standard intensity values. Then the process is repeated until the two sets of values are the same.” Page 89 col. 21 lines 4-11), allowing for improvements to be made as to the amount of people able to view an image and how quickly that can be accomplished (“It is a further object of the present invention to improve the utility of a stereoscopic endoscope in which the image of the object can be viewed by many people or by a single person, quickly.” Page 79 col. 2 lines 10-13).
Claims 7, 14, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Levin and Jensen as applied to claims 1, 8, and 15 , respectfully, above, and further in view of Wang (US 20190374155 A1).
With respect to claim 7, Levin and Jensen teach the system of claim 5. However, Levin and Jensen do not teach the system of Claim 5, wherein the distance of the boundary relative to the instrument is used to calculate the boundary's area and volume.
Wang teaches where the distance of the boundary relative to the instrument is used to calculate a boundary's area and volume (“Distance information associated with the object of interest with respect to the imaging apparatus is derived from said one or more structured-light images in step 940. Physical area size or physical volume size of the object of interest is determined based on said one or more regular images and the distance information in step 950. The imaging apparatus can be a capsule endoscope or an insertion endoscope.” Paragraph 0078 lines 24-31).
Jensen is analogous art in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Jensen is directed towards displaying and generating pixel intensity maps (“One method by which the pixels of an image can be assigned color values for display purposes is to map each pixel intensity value, or brightness, to a particular shade of gray, based on window and level parameter settings” paragraph 0009 lines 1-4). A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention could have reasoned that combining Levin and Jensen by incorporating Jensen’s GUI onto the user display of Levin would lead to enabling greater customization of the data view, by expanding the “capability for visualization and selection of parameters for displaying images, responsive to user input instructions” (paragraph 0024 lines 12-14), while restricting user input to valid parameters such that valid deterministic results are outputted by the system (“The disclosed user interfaces represent the full range of appropriate or legitimate parametric value pairs for WINDOW/LEVEL selection, and do not allow any invalid parametric value pairs to be selected” paragraph 0080 lines 1-4 and “can lead to invalid or non-deterministic results” paragraph 0050 lines 11-12 ). Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Levin and Jensen by incorporating Jensen’s GUI onto the user display of Levin, with the expectation that doing so would lead to enabling greater customization of the data view, by expanding the “capability for visualization and selection of parameters for displaying images, responsive to user input instructions” (paragraph 0024 lines 12-14), while restricting user input to valid parameters such that valid deterministic results are outputted by the system (“The disclosed user interfaces represent the full range of appropriate or legitimate parametric value pairs for WINDOW/LEVEL selection, and do not allow any invalid parametric value pairs to be selected” paragraph 0080 lines 1-4 and “can lead to invalid or non-deterministic results” paragraph 0050 lines 11-12 ).
Wang is analogous art in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Wang is directed towards determining area and volume of a region of interest in anatomical images (“A method for estimating a physical length, physical area or physical volume of an object of interest in a regular image captured using an endoscope is disclosed. According to this method, one or more structured-light images are received, where the structured-light images are captured using the imaging apparatus by projecting structured light onto a body lumen when the imaging apparatus is in the body lumen.” Paragraph 0009 lines 1-8). A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention could have reasoned that combining the system of Levin and Jensen and Wang by utilizing the pixel intensity map of Levin to determine the distance of a tool to the boundary as well as the area and volume of said boundary, as taught by Wang, would lead to users of the instrument being more easily able to determine the area and volume of an anomaly (“an invention of the present invention discloses an endoscope system that allows a user to easily measure the area or volume of an anomaly.” Paragraph 0039 lines 2-5). Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the system of Levin and Jensen and Wang by utilizing the pixel intensity map of Levin to determine the distance of a tool to the boundary as well as the area and volume of said boundary, as taught by Wang, with the expectation that doing so would lead to users of the instrument being more easily able to determine the area and volume of an anomaly (“an invention of the present invention discloses an endoscope system that allows a user to easily measure the area or volume of an anomaly.” Paragraph 0039 lines 2-5).
With respect to claim 14, Levin and Jensen teach the method of claim 12. However, Levin and Jensen do not teach the method of Claim 12, wherein the distance of the boundary relative to the instrument is used to calculate the boundary's area and volume.
Wang teaches where the distance of the boundary relative to the instrument is used to calculate a boundary's area and volume (“Distance information associated with the object of interest with respect to the imaging apparatus is derived from said one or more structured-light images in step 940. Physical area size or physical volume size of the object of interest is determined based on said one or more regular images and the distance information in step 950. The imaging apparatus can be a capsule endoscope or an insertion endoscope.” Paragraph 0078 lines 24-31).
Jensen is analogous art in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Jensen is directed towards displaying and generating pixel intensity maps (“One method by which the pixels of an image can be assigned color values for display purposes is to map each pixel intensity value, or brightness, to a particular shade of gray, based on window and level parameter settings” paragraph 0009 lines 1-4). A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention could have reasoned that combining Levin and Jensen by incorporating Jensen’s GUI onto the user display of Levin would lead to enabling greater customization of the data view, by expanding the “capability for visualization and selection of parameters for displaying images, responsive to user input instructions” (paragraph 0024 lines 12-14), while restricting user input to valid parameters such that valid deterministic results are outputted by the system (“The disclosed user interfaces represent the full range of appropriate or legitimate parametric value pairs for WINDOW/LEVEL selection, and do not allow any invalid parametric value pairs to be selected” paragraph 0080 lines 1-4 and “can lead to invalid or non-deterministic results” paragraph 0050 lines 11-12 ). Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Levin and Jensen by incorporating Jensen’s GUI onto the user display of Levin, with the expectation that doing so would lead to enabling greater customization of the data view, by expanding the “capability for visualization and selection of parameters for displaying images, responsive to user input instructions” (paragraph 0024 lines 12-14), while restricting user input to valid parameters such that valid deterministic results are outputted by the system (“The disclosed user interfaces represent the full range of appropriate or legitimate parametric value pairs for WINDOW/LEVEL selection, and do not allow any invalid parametric value pairs to be selected” paragraph 0080 lines 1-4 and “can lead to invalid or non-deterministic results” paragraph 0050 lines 11-12 ).
Wang is analogous art in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Wang is directed towards determining area and volume of a region of interest in anatomical images (“A method for estimating a physical length, physical area or physical volume of an object of interest in a regular image captured using an endoscope is disclosed. According to this method, one or more structured-light images are received, where the structured-light images are captured using the imaging apparatus by projecting structured light onto a body lumen when the imaging apparatus is in the body lumen.” Paragraph 0009 lines 1-8). A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention could have reasoned that combining the system of Levin and Jensen and Wang by utilizing the pixel intensity map of Levin to determine the distance of a tool to the boundary as well as the area and volume of said boundary, as taught by Wang, would lead to users of the instrument being more easily able to determine the area and volume of an anomaly (“an invention of the present invention discloses an endoscope system that allows a user to easily measure the area or volume of an anomaly.” Paragraph 0039 lines 2-5). Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the system of Levin and Jensen and Wang by utilizing the pixel intensity map of Levin to determine the distance of a tool to the boundary as well as the area and volume of said boundary, as taught by Wang, with the expectation that doing so would lead to users of the instrument being more easily able to determine the area and volume of an anomaly (“an invention of the present invention discloses an endoscope system that allows a user to easily measure the area or volume of an anomaly.” Paragraph 0039 lines 2-5).
With respect to claim 20, Levin and Jensen teach the system of claim 18. However, Levin and Jensen do not teach the system of Claim 18, wherein the distance of the boundary relative to the instrument is used to calculate the boundary's area and volume.
Wang teaches where the distance of the boundary relative to the instrument is used to calculate a boundary's area and volume (“Distance information associated with the object of interest with respect to the imaging apparatus is derived from said one or more structured-light images in step 940. Physical area size or physical volume size of the object of interest is determined based on said one or more regular images and the distance information in step 950. The imaging apparatus can be a capsule endoscope or an insertion endoscope.” Paragraph 0078 lines 24-31).
Jensen is analogous art in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Jensen is directed towards displaying and generating pixel intensity maps (“One method by which the pixels of an image can be assigned color values for display purposes is to map each pixel intensity value, or brightness, to a particular shade of gray, based on window and level parameter settings” paragraph 0009 lines 1-4). A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention could have reasoned that combining Levin and Jensen by incorporating Jensen’s GUI onto the user display of Levin would lead to enabling greater customization of the data view, by expanding the “capability for visualization and selection of parameters for displaying images, responsive to user input instructions” (paragraph 0024 lines 12-14), while restricting user input to valid parameters such that valid deterministic results are outputted by the system (“The disclosed user interfaces represent the full range of appropriate or legitimate parametric value pairs for WINDOW/LEVEL selection, and do not allow any invalid parametric value pairs to be selected” paragraph 0080 lines 1-4 and “can lead to invalid or non-deterministic results” paragraph 0050 lines 11-12 ). Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Levin and Jensen by incorporating Jensen’s GUI onto the user display of Levin, with the expectation that doing so would lead to enabling greater customization of the data view, by expanding the “capability for visualization and selection of parameters for displaying images, responsive to user input instructions” (paragraph 0024 lines 12-14), while restricting user input to valid parameters such that valid deterministic results are outputted by the system (“The disclosed user interfaces represent the full range of appropriate or legitimate parametric value pairs for WINDOW/LEVEL selection, and do not allow any invalid parametric value pairs to be selected” paragraph 0080 lines 1-4 and “can lead to invalid or non-deterministic results” paragraph 0050 lines 11-12 ).
Wang is analogous art in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Wang is directed towards determining area and volume of a region of interest in anatomical images (“A method for estimating a physical length, physical area or physical volume of an object of interest in a regular image captured using an endoscope is disclosed. According to this method, one or more structured-light images are received, where the structured-light images are captured using the imaging apparatus by projecting structured light onto a body lumen when the imaging apparatus is in the body lumen.” Paragraph 0009 lines 1-8). A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention could have reasoned that combining the system of Levin and Jensen and Wang by utilizing the pixel intensity map of Levin to determine the distance of a tool to the boundary as well as the area and volume of said boundary, as taught by Wang, would lead to users of the instrument being more easily able to determine the area and volume of an anomaly (“an invention of the present invention discloses an endoscope system that allows a user to easily measure the area or volume of an anomaly.” Paragraph 0039 lines 2-5). Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the system of Levin and Jensen and Wang by utilizing the pixel intensity map of Levin to determine the distance of a tool to the boundary as well as the area and volume of said boundary, as taught by Wang, with the expectation that doing so would lead to users of the instrument being more easily able to determine the area and volume of an anomaly (“an invention of the present invention discloses an endoscope system that allows a user to easily measure the area or volume of an anomaly.” Paragraph 0039 lines 2-5).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 09/25/2025 have been fully considered, but are not persuasive.
With respect to claims 1, 8, and 15, applicant argues that the claims as written are misconstrued in lieu of the specification and figures (see page 22 paragraph 1). Examiner finds this argument unpersuasive. The claims were examined according to their BRI (broadest reasonable interpretation). Limitations or specific interpretations present in the specifications or figures, but not included in the claims are not considered.
With respect to applicant’s arguments regarding the use of Levin, the applicant contends that Levin does not disclose applicant’s boundary map or GUI (see page 22 paragraph 2). In regards to the lack of a GUI and visualization overlay (see page 22 paragraph 2), the Examiner contends that Levin was not mapped to those limitations and instead Jensen was used as reference. In regards to it not disclosing a boundary map, applicant respectfully disagrees and finds that an edge rendered map with calculated pixel intensity reads on the limitations as written in the claims. In regards to its pixel intensity, calculations not including a per-pixel calculation (see page 22 paragraph 2), examiner again disagrees and recognizes calculated pixel saturation and calculated pixel intensity variance to be inclusive of per pixel intensity calculations, regardless of its intended use.
With respect to applicant’s arguments regarding the use of Jensen, the applicant contends that Jenson does not disclose a GUI based on a boundary-localized intensity map not and that its labels do not correspond to object recognition (page 23 paragraph 1). In regards to Jensen not disclosing a GUI based on a boundary-localized intensity map, the examiner contends that being a part of a combination Jensen does not have to teach every limitation, individually, when taken separated from the other cited sources. Jensen teaches a GUI based on a pixel intensity map. This teaching, when taken in obvious combination with Levin satisfies that limitation. In regards of the argument that Jensen’s labels do not correspond to object recognition, the examiner respectfully disagrees and finds the process of indicating and labeling of skin and bone to be within the BRI of an object recognition process. The examiner also contends that this limitation is not present in claims 1,8, or 15 and is instead present in claim 16.
With respect to the applicant’s argument of the combination of Levin and Jensen, the applicant argues that neither Levin nor Jensen, alone or in combination teaches or suggest the claim limitations. Examiner disagrees due to the above reasoning. In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
With respect to the applicant’s argument of the patentability of the dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 applicant again disagrees due to the above reasoning.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Fluck (US 20080112614 A1)- discloses identifying and calculating intensity within a region of interest
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 REBECCA C WILLIAMS whose telephone number is (571)272-7074. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30am - 4:00pm.
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, Andrew W Bee can be reached at (571)270-5183. 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.
/REBECCA COLETTE WILLIAMS/Examiner, Art Unit 2677
/EMILY C TERRELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2666