CTFR 18/153,938 CTFR 92122 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-fti AIA The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions. Response to Amendment The amendment of 02/17/2025 has been entered and fully considered by the examiner. Claims 1-6, 9, 10, and 14-20 are amended. Claims 1-20 are currently pending in the application with claim 1 being independent. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – 07-08-aia AIA (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. 07-15 AIA Claim s 1-4, 6, 7 and 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1 ) as being anticipated by Chang et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2020/0234439) hereinafter “Chang” . Regarding claim 1 , Chang discloses a system [system of Chang; see abstract] comprising: an image sensor [CMOS sensor 304; see FIG. 3 and [0113] comprising a pixel array [array of pixels of the image sensor 305; see [0113]]; and an emitter [light source 1`4; see FIG. 1 and [0108]] comprising a plurality of sources of electromagnetic radiation , [see [0116] and FIG. 8; the emitter comprises of two light generators for generating in two bands (white light and fluorescence light) ] and wherein the plurality of sources comprises a first source and a second source; [the first generator 332 and second source 334; see [0116]] wherein the emitter cycles at least a portion of the plurality of sources according to a pulse cycle [see [0117]-[0118] of Chang] comprising: a plurality of pulsed emissions by the first source; [see FIG. 5 and [0134]] and a plurality of pulsed emissions by the second source; [see FIG. 5 and [0134]] wherein the image sensor reads out a first data frame from the plurality of pulsed emissions of the first source in a first readout period; [readout time 512] wherein the image sensor reads out a second data frame from the plurality of pulsed emission of the second source in a second readout period. [readout time 512; the first and second readout time overlap each other] wherein at least a portion of the plurality of pulsed emissions by the second source [pulsed emission 530 of ICG laser; see FIG. 5] overlap a first readout period of the image sensor [readout time 512] when the image sensor reads out the first data frame corresponding with an emission by the first source; [readout time 512 is the readout time of the white light (i.e. first source); see FIG. 5 and [0132] of Chang] and wherein the second readout period does not overlap the plurality of pulsed emission from the first source. [during the readout time 512, the white light source is off] Regarding claim 2, Chang further discloses that the first source is a visible source that pulses electromagnetic radiation within a visible waveband of the electromagnetic spectrum; [see [0132]-[0134] and FIG. 5 disclosing that the first source is a white light source] wherein the data frame corresponding with the emission by the first source is a color data frame ;[see [0162] of Chang] wherein the pixel array accumulates energy corresponding to reflected electromagnetic radiation during a blanking period [blanking period 517] when the emitter pulses the visible source; [see FIG. 5 and [0134] of Chang] and wherein the image sensor reads out the color first data frame during the first readout period [readout period 514] immediately subsequent to the blanking period when the emitter pulses the visible source [see FIG. 5]. Regarding claim 3 , Chang further discloses that the second source is an excitation source configured to emit a fluorescence emission corresponding to a fluorescence excitation wavelength of electromagnetic spectrum; [see [0135] of Chang] wherein the fluorescence excitation wavelength of electromagnetic radiation is selected to cause one or more of a reagent or a tissue to fluoresce; [see [0125] of Chang] wherein the pixel array accumulates energy corresponding to a fluorescence relaxation wavelength of electromagnetic radiation emitted by the one or more of the reagent or the tissue; and wherein the second data from is a fluorescence data from and the image sensor reads out the fluorescence data frame during the second readout period corresponding with the second source. [see [0134]-[0136] of Chang] Regarding claim 4 , Chang further discloses that the second source is cycled on during each of: the second readout period when the image sensor reads out the color data frame; and a blanking period immediately subsequent to the image sensor reading out the color data frame. [see FIG. 5; the ICG laser is on during both the blanking time 517 and part of the readout time 512]] Regarding claim 6 , Chang further discloses that the emitter cycles off the first source during each of: the second readout period when the image sensor reads out the color data frame; the blanking period immediately subsequent to the image sensor reading out the color data frame; and the readout period wherein the image sensor reads out the fluorescence data frame. [see FIG. 5 of Chang; the white light is off during the second readout period 512 which corresponds to the white light readout, the blanking time 517 and the first readout period which corresponds to the previous fluorescent excitation] Regarding claim 7 , Chang further discloses that the emitter cycles the first source and the second source on and off according to the pulse cycle such that the plurality of pulsed emissions by the first source do not overlap with the plurality of pulsed emissions by the second source. [see FIG. 5; the white light (i.e. first source) and the ICG laser emission (fluorescence second source) do not overlap in their emission time] Regarding claim 15 , Chang further discloses that the image sensor reads out a color data frame [see [0162] of Chang; the 3 detectors make a color image] and an advanced data frame [see [0135]; Fluorescent image data frame], and wherein: the pixel array accumulates electromagnetic radiation resulting from an emission by the first source to output the color data frame [see [0132]-[0133] of Chang]; and the pixel array accumulates electromagnetic radiation resulting from an emission by the second source to output the advanced data frame. [see [0135] of Chang] Regarding claim 16 , Chang further discloses that the advanced data frame comprises one or more of: a fluorescence data frame [see [0135]; Fluorescent image data frame] corresponding with the pixel array accumulating one or more of a fluorescence excitation wavelength of electromagnetic radiation [see [0128] of Chang] or a fluorescence relaxation wavelength of electromagnetic radiation; or a multispectral data frame corresponding with the pixel array accumulating one or more of a multispectral wavelength of electromagnetic radiation or a spectral response emission of electromagnetic radiation. Regarding claim 17 , Chang further discloses that the pulse cycle is such that: the first source is cycled on during a blanking period immediately preceding readout of the color data frame ;[see FIG. 5; the readout time 512 before the start of emission of the white light is such that the white light is off] the first source is cycled off during a rolling readout sequence when the image sensor is reading out the color data frame ;[see FIG. 5; the white light is off during the readout period at the end of the cycle which corresponds to the image frame data [see 0132-0134] of Chang] the first source is cycled off during a blanking period immediately preceding readout of the advanced data frame; [see FIG. 5; the white light is off during the blanking period 517] and the first source is cycled off during a rolling readout sequence when the image sensor is reading out the advanced data frame .[the readout 512 at the end of the cycle reads both data from the first and second sources; the white light is off during the second readout period; see FIG. 5] Regarding claim 18 , Chang further discloses that the pulse cycle is such that: the second source is cycled off during the blanking period immediately preceding the readout of the color data frame; [see FIG. 5; the ICG laser is off during the first blanking time 517] the second source is cycled on during the rolling readout sequence when the image sensor is reading out the color data frame; [see FIG. 5; the ICG laser is on during the second readout time 512] the second source is cycled on during the blanking period immediately preceding the readout of the advanced data frame; [see FIG. 5; the ICG laser is on during the second blanking time which is before the readout of the advanced data frame] and the second source is cycled on during the rolling readout sequence when the image sensor is reading out the advanced data frame. [see FIG. 5; the ICG laser is on at least partially during the readout of the advanced data frame at the end of the cycle] Regarding claim 19 , Chang further discloses that information from the color data frame and the advanced data frame are combined to generate an overlay frame, [see [0102] of Chang] wherein the overlay frame comprises a color image depicting a scene and further comprises a false color overlay depicting information determined based on the advanced data frame. [see [0171] of Chang] Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. 07-20-02-aia AIA This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. 07-21-aia AIA Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2020/0234439) hereinafter “Chang” . Regarding claim 5 , Chang discloses all the limitations of claim 4 [see rejection of claim 4] Chang further discloses that the second source is further cycled on during the readout period corresponding with the second source [see FIG. 5; the second source (ICG laser is on at least partially during the readout period 512] wherein the image sensor reads out the fluorescence data frame [see [0135]; Fluorescent image data frame] ; and wherein the second source is cycled on continuously throughout each of: the readout period when the image sensor reads out the color data frame ;[the readout section 512 is the same as the readout section for white first source (readout 512)] the blanking period immediately subsequent to the image sensor reading out the color data frame; [the ICG laser is on during the entire time of the blanking time 517; see FIG. 5] and the readout period wherein the image sensor reads out the fluorescence data frame [see FIG. 5; the second source (ICG laser is on at least partially during the readout period 512] Chang does not disclose that the second source is continuously on during all those periods. However Chang discloses that Florescent excitation light (i.e. second source) may be provided continuously during the duration of imaging [see [0128]-[0129] of Chang] It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill level in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify the design of Chang such that the second source is continuously on during all those periods according to another embodiment of Chang in order to increase sensitivity to fluorescence emission from the tissue [see [0129] of Chang] 07-21-aia AIA Claim 8, 11-13 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2020/0234439) hereinafter “Chang” in view of Talbert et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2020/0397251) hereinafter “Talbert” . Regarding claim 8 , Chang further discloses an endoscope [endoscope 12; see FIG. 2 and [0111] of Chang] , wherein the image sensor [imager 916; see FIG. 9 and [0161] of Chang] is disposed within the endoscope [see FIG. 2 of Chang] ; and a prism [trichroic prism 990; see FIG. 9 and [0161]] configured to reflect electromagnetic radiation on to the image sensor; wherein a planar side of the pixel array is oriented parallel to a longitudinal axis of the endoscope. Chang does not disclose that the image sensor is disposed within a distal region of the endoscope and the prism is disposed within the distal region of the endoscope ; wherein a planar side of the pixel array is oriented parallel to a longitudinal axis of the endoscope . Talbert, directed towards an image sensor integrated into an endoscope [see abstract of Talbert] further discloses that the image sensor is disposed within a distal region of the endoscope [see FIG. 8 and [0171] of Talbert] and the prism is disposed within the distal region of the endoscope; [see FIG. 8 and [0175] of Talbert] wherein a planar side of the pixel array is oriented parallel to a longitudinal axis of the endoscope. [see FIG. 8 and [0187] of Talbert] It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill level in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify the design of Chang such that the image sensor is disposed within a distal region of the endoscope and the prism is disposed within the distal region of the endoscope; wherein a planar side of the pixel array is oriented parallel to a longitudinal axis of the endoscope according to the teachings of Talbert in order to avoid misalignment of the camera and degradation of the images [see [0005] of Talbert] Regarding claim 11 , Chang discloses all the limitations of claim 1 [see rejection of claim 1] Chang does not expressly disclose that the electromagnetic radiation emitted by the second source comprises a shorter amplitude when compared with the electromagnetic radiation emitted by the first source. Talbert further discloses that the electromagnetic radiation emitted by the second source comprises a shorter amplitude when compared with the electromagnetic radiation emitted by the first source. [see [0104] of Talbert disclosing adjusting the intensity of various pulses such that that the intensity of pulse 1 (i.e. the white light) is larger and it has a larger magnitude or intensity compared to pulse 2 (i.e. fluorescent)] It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill level in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify the design of Chang such that the electromagnetic radiation emitted by the second source comprises a shorter amplitude when compared with the electromagnetic radiation emitted by the first source according to the teachings of Talbert in order to provide more electromagnetic energy to the pixels that is desired and less electromagnetic energy to pixels that is desired [see [0104] of Talbert] Further, it has been held that once the general conditions of claim are met, discovering optimum values for a result effective variable (such as amplitude of the signal) involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617, F2nd 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Regarding claim 12 , Chang discloses all the limitations of claim 1 [see rejection of claim 1] Chang does not expressly disclose that the electromagnetic radiation emitted by the second source comprises less energy when compared with the electromagnetic radiation emitted by the first source. Talbert further discloses that the electromagnetic radiation emitted by the second source comprises less energy when compared with the electromagnetic radiation emitted by the first source. [see [0104] of Talbert disclosing adjusting the intensity of various pulses such that that the intensity of pulse 1 (i.e. the white light) is larger and it has a larger magnitude or intensity compared to pulse 2 (i.e. fluorescent); therefore the second source would have less energy] It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill level in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify the design of Chang such that the electromagnetic radiation emitted by the second source comprises less energy when compared with the electromagnetic radiation emitted by the first source according to the teachings of Talbert in order to provide more electromagnetic energy to the pixels that is desired and less electromagnetic energy to pixels that is desired [see [0104] of Talbert] Further, it has been held that once the general conditions of claim are met, discovering optimum values for a result effective variable (such as amplitude of the signal) involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617, F2nd 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Regarding claim 13 , Chang discloses all the limitations of claim 1 [see rejection of claim 1] Chang does not expressly disclose that the electromagnetic radiation emitted by the second source is dimmer than the electromagnetic radiation emitted by the first source. Talbert further discloses that the electromagnetic radiation emitted by the second source is dimmer than the electromagnetic radiation emitted by the first source. [see [0104] of Talbert disclosing adjusting the intensity of various pulses such that that the intensity of pulse 1 (i.e. the white light) is larger and it has a larger magnitude or intensity compared to pulse 2 (i.e. fluorescent); therefore, the second source would be dimmer] It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill level in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify the design of Chang such that the electromagnetic radiation emitted by the second source is dimmer than the electromagnetic radiation emitted by the first source according to the teachings of Talbert in order to provide more electromagnetic energy to the pixels that is desired and less electromagnetic energy to pixels that is desired [see [0104] of Talbert] Further, it has been held that once the general conditions of claim are met, discovering optimum values for a result effective variable (such as amplitude of the signal) involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617, F2nd 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Regarding claim 20 , Chang discloses all the limitations of claim 16 [see rejection of claim 16] Chang further discloses that the color data frame further comprises advanced visualization data due to the emitter cycling on the second source during a readout period when the image sensor reads out the color data frame; [see FIG. 5; since the second source (i.e. ICG laser) emits in the readout time, the frame includes advanced data corresponding to the fluorescence as well] Chang does not expressly disclose that the system further comprises a processor configured to subtract the advanced visualization data from the color data frame. Talbert further discloses that the system further comprises a processor configured to subtract the advanced visualization data from the color data frame. [see [0165] of Talbert] It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill level in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify the design of Chang such that the system further comprises a processor configured to subtract the advanced visualization data from the color data frame according to the teachings of Talbert in order to decode and separate different amount of luminescence from neighboring frames [see [0165] of Talbert] 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 9, 10, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2020/0234439) hereinafter “Chang” in view of Balas (U.S. Publication No. 2021/0381893) hereinafter “Balas” . Regarding claim 9 , Chang discloses all the limitations of claim 1 [see rejection of claim 1] Chang further discloses that wherein the second source emits electromagnetic radiation within one or more of: a near infrared waveband of the electromagnetic spectrum; or an infrared waveband of the electromagnetic spectrum. [see [0122]; the excitation light could be in the infrared light] Chang does not expressly disclose that the pixel array is less efficient at accumulating energy corresponding to electromagnetic radiation emitted by the second source when compared with electromagnetic radiation emitted by the first source. Balas, directed towards a multi spectral image sensor [see abstract of Balas] further discloses that that the pixel array is less efficient at accumulating electromagnetic radiation emitted by the second source when compared with electromagnetic radiation emitted by the first source . [see FIG. 7 and [0109]; the spectral response of the image sensor is mostly within the visible range and therefore it is less efficient in the infrared range where the excitation light is] It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill level in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify the design of Chang such that the pixel array is relatively inefficient at accumulating electromagnetic radiation emitted by the second source when compared with electromagnetic radiation emitted by the first source according to the teachings of Balas in order to emulate the human vision response [see [0109] of Balas] Regarding claim 10 , Chang discloses all the limitations of claim 1 [see rejection of claim 1] Chang further discloses that the first source emits one or more of: white light; or a partition of electromagnetic radiation from a visible waveband of the electromagnetic spectrum. [see [0122]; the first light could be white light in the visible spectrum] Chang does not expressly disclose that the pixel array is relatively inefficient at accumulating electromagnetic radiation emitted by the second source when compared with electromagnetic radiation emitted by the first source . Balas further discloses that the pixel array is relatively inefficient at accumulating electromagnetic radiation emitted by the second source when compared with electromagnetic radiation emitted by the first source . [see FIG. 7 and [0109]; the spectral response of the image sensor is mostly within the visible range and therefore it is less efficient in the infrared range where the excitation light is] It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill level in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify the design of Chang such that the pixel array is relatively inefficient at accumulating electromagnetic radiation emitted by the second source when compared with electromagnetic radiation emitted by the first source according to the teachings of Balas in order to emulate the human vision response [see [0109] of Balas] Regarding claim 14 , Chang discloses all the limitations of claim 1 [see rejection of claim 1] Chang further discloses that the first source and the second source emit different wavebands of the electromagnetic spectrum, [see [0122]; the excitation light could be in the infrared light and visible light] Chang does not expressly disclose that the pixel array is inherently less efficient at accumulating a waveband of electromagnetic radiation emitted by the second source when compared with a waveband of electromagnetic radiation emitted by the first source . Balas further discloses that the pixel array is inherently less efficient at accumulating a waveband of electromagnetic radiation emitted by the second source when compared with a waveband of electromagnetic radiation emitted by the first source. [see FIG. 7 and [0109]; the spectral response of the image sensor is mostly within the visible range and therefore it is less efficient in the infrared range where the excitation light is] It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill level in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify the design of Chang such that the pixel array is inherently less efficient at accumulating a waveband of electromagnetic radiation emitted by the second source when compared with a waveband of electromagnetic radiation emitted by the first source according to the teachings of Balas in order to emulate the human vision response [see [0109] of Balas] Response to Arguments 07-37 AIA Applicant's arguments filed 02/17/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. With regards to the rejection of claims under U.S.C. 102, the applicant has argued that Chang does not disclose two separate readout times for different sources. The examiner respectfully notes that the claims merely require that there would be two readout times, one for each source. The limitation does not distinguish between the two readout times and does not require that they would be separate time slots. Therefore, Chang reads on the language of the claims as they are currently stated because the readout time of Chang is both for the white light and fluorescent light. The applicant is advised to use more specific limitation to distinguish the claims from prior art of record. Conclusion 07-40 AIA 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 MARJAN - SABOKTAKIN whose telephone number is (303)297-4278. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 am-5pm CT. 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, Michael Carey can be reached at (571) 270-7235. 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. /MARJAN SABOKTAKIN/Examiner, Art Unit 3797 /MICHAEL J CAREY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3795 Application/Control Number: 18/153,938 Page 2 Art Unit: 3797 Application/Control Number: 18/153,938 Page 3 Art Unit: 3797 Application/Control Number: 18/153,938 Page 4 Art Unit: 3797 Application/Control Number: 18/153,938 Page 5 Art Unit: 3797 Application/Control Number: 18/153,938 Page 6 Art Unit: 3797 Application/Control Number: 18/153,938 Page 7 Art Unit: 3797 Application/Control Number: 18/153,938 Page 8 Art Unit: 3797 Application/Control Number: 18/153,938 Page 9 Art Unit: 3797 Application/Control Number: 18/153,938 Page 10 Art Unit: 3797 Application/Control Number: 18/153,938 Page 11 Art Unit: 3797 Application/Control Number: 18/153,938 Page 12 Art Unit: 3797 Application/Control Number: 18/153,938 Page 13 Art Unit: 3797 Application/Control Number: 18/153,938 Page 14 Art Unit: 3797 Application/Control Number: 18/153,938 Page 15 Art Unit: 3797 Application/Control Number: 18/153,938 Page 16 Art Unit: 3797
Prosecution Insights