DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 - 8, 10 – 20 and 25 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 –
(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.
Claim(s) 13 and 16 - 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kanowitz (US 2016/0022943 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Kanowitz a method for quantitatively assessing a trachea (Abstract) comprising:
capturing images of a glottis and a trachea of a subject captured by an image acquisition device of a video laryngoscope (paragraphs [0073 - 75] disclose both indirect and direct image capturing means of the glottis and trachea);
analyzing, by a processor of the video laryngoscope, the received images to identify a tracheal structure (paragraph [0072] discloses computer, processors and associated subsystems to analysis the received images);
quantitatively assessing, by the processor of the video laryngoscope (paragraph [0072] discloses performing analyses and algorithmic calculations), the trachea based on the identified tracheal structure, to determine at least one attribute of the trachea, wherein the at least one attribute of the trachea comprises at least one of a diameter of the trachea, a radius of the trachea, a perimeter of the trachea, or an area of the trachea (paragraph [0073], Figs. 8A, 8B discloses a diameter or length measurement).
Regarding claim 16, Kanowitz discloses the method of claim 13, further comprising superimposing a representation of the identified tracheal structure on the received image and displaying the superimposed image on a display of the video laryngoscope (Fig. 8B).
Regarding claim 17, Kanowitz discloses the method of claim 13, wherein at least one attribute of the trachea comprises the diameter of the trachea (paragraph [0072]).
Regarding claim 18, Kanowitz discloses the method of claim 13, further comprising displaying a representation of the at least one attribute of the trachea on a display of the video laryngoscope (Fig. 6 shows a display/screen to view a representation of the attribute such as shown in Figs. 7 – 8B).
Regarding claim 19, Kanowitz discloses the method of claim 18, further comprising superimposing the representation of the at least one attribute of the trachea on the received image (Fig. 8B).
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4 – 7, 11 and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kanowitz (US 2016/0022943 A1) in view of Wibowo et al. (US 2011/0065982 A1) and in view of Leong et al. (US 2019/0350440 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kanowitz discloses a video laryngoscope (paragraph [0063], ref. 60) comprising:
an image acquisition device configured to capture images of a glottis and a trachea of a subject (paragraph [0075] discloses a video laryngoscope tip to image the trachea, ref. 85);
one or more processors configured to execute calculations (paragraph [0072]);
wherein the video laryngoscope is configured to;
receiving the images of the glottis and the trachea captured by the image acquisition device (paragraph [0073], Figs. 7, 8A, 8B);
analyzing the received images (paragraph [0072] discloses analyses and algorithmic calculations in response to the images);
quantitatively assessing the trachea based on the images to determine at least one attribute of the trachea, wherein the at least one attribute of the trachea comprises at least one of a diameter of the trachea, a radius of the trachea, a perimeter of the trachea, or an area of the trachea (paragraphs [0025, 72, 73]).
Kanowitz discloses a video laryngoscope comprising an image acquisition device used to determine at least one attribute of the trachea, but is silent regarding the quantitative steps associated with the processor for this purpose, specifically wherein the one or more processors are configured to execute the series of computer instruction that cause the video laryngoscope to perform the operations comprising;
receiving the images of the glottis and the trachea captured by the image acquisition device;
analyzing the received images to identify a tracheal structure; and
quantitatively assessing the trachea based on the identified tracheal structure, to determine at least one attribute of the trachea, wherein the at least one attribute of the trachea comprises at least one of a diameter of the trachea, a radius of the trachea, a perimeter of the trachea, or an area of the trachea.
Wibowo teaches a system for determining airway diameter in the same technical field (airway visualization and measurement) comprising;
an endoscope (ref. 490);
image data comprising images (paragraph [0018]);
one or more processors (paragraph [0048], ref. 460) configured to execute the series of computer instructions that cause the endoscope to perform operations comprising;
receiving the images (paragraphs [0018-20]);
analyzing the received images to identify a tracheal structure (paragraph [0021-25]); and
quantitatively assessing the trachea based on the identified tracheal structure, to determine at least one attribute of the trachea, wherein the at least one attribute of the trachea comprises at least one of a diameter of the trachea, a radius of the trachea, a perimeter of the trachea, or an area of the trachea (paragraph [0026-30]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the video laryngoscope of Kanowitz such that the processor causes the video laryngoscope to perform operations comprising:
receiving the images of the glottis and the trachea captured by the image acquisition device;
analyzing the received images to identify a tracheal structure; and
quantitatively assessing the trachea based on the identified tracheal structure, to determine at least one attribute of the trachea, wherein the at least one attribute of the trachea comprises at least one of a diameter of the trachea, a radius of the trachea, a perimeter of the trachea, or an area of the trachea, as taught by Wibowo, for the purpose of better obtaining the attributes at a particular location in real time (paragraph [0005]).
Kanowitz is also silent regarding a memory configured to store one or more series of computer instructions. It is noted that Kanowitz discloses analytical software, computers, processors and associated subsystems to perform analyses and algorithmic calculations (paragraph [0072]) which would require a form of storage to store the information required to perform its function, but does not specifically disclose a memory to store the computer instructions.
Leong teaches a video endoscope in the related field of airway examination (paragraph [0020]) comprising a processor (paragraph [0086], ref. 920) and a memory (ref. 990) configured to store one or more series of computer instructions (paragraph [0086]) for the processor to execute (paragraph [0089]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the video laryngoscope of Kanowtiz to include a memory configured to store one or more series of computer instructions, as taught by Leong, for the purpose of providing programmable, automated, and repeatable control of the computer instructions.
Regarding claim 2, Kanowitz in view of Wibowo and in view of Leong discloses the video laryngoscope of claim 1, wherein an image segmentation algorithm is applied to the captured images to identify the tracheal structure (Wibowo, paragraph [0022]).
Regarding claim 4, Kanowitz in view of Wibowo and in view of Leong discloses the video laryngoscope of claim 1, wherein a representation of the identified tracheal structure (Kanowitz, ref. 75, Fig. 8B) is superimposed on the received image and displayed on a display of the video laryngoscope (Kanowitz, Fig. 8B).
Regarding claim 5, Kanowitz in view of Wibowo and in view of Leong discloses the video laryngoscope of claim 1, wherein the at least one attribute of the trachea comprises the diameter of the trachea (Kanowitz, paragraph [0072]).
Regarding claim 6, Kanowitz in view of Wibowo and in view of Leong discloses the video laryngoscope of claim 1, wherein a representation of the at least one attribute of the trachea is displayed on a display of the video laryngoscope system (Kanowitz, Fig. 8B).
Regarding claim 7, Kanowitz in view of Wibowo and in view of Leong discloses the video laryngoscope of claim 6, wherein the representation of the at least one attribute of the trachea is superimposed on the received image (Kanowitz, Fig. 8B).
Regarding claim 11, Kanowitz in view of Wibowo and in view of Leong discloses the video laryngoscope of claim 1, wherein a reference object with known size is positioned near the glottis and is captured by the image acquisition device (Kanowitz, Fig. 10, ref. 82).
Regarding claim 25, Kanowitz discloses a video laryngoscope (Abstract) comprising:
an image acquisition device (paragraph [0072] discloses both indirect and direct imaging, see ref. 76 and ref. 85) comprising an elongate shaft housing a camera (Figs. 9A and 11 show an elongate shaft of a laryngoscope housing the imaging means/camera, more specifically the optical scanning/ultrasound camera and fiber optic video guidance systems);
a display coupled to the image acquisition device (paragraph [0073] discloses readout screens);
one or more processors configured to execute the series of computer instructions (paragraph [0073] discloses computers and processors necessary to execute analyses and calculations) that cause the video laryngoscope to perform operations comprising:
receiving the images of the trachea captured by the camera (paragraph [0073], Figs. 7, 8A, 8B);
superimposing at least one numerical attribute of the trachea on the display of the video laryngoscope (Figs. 8B, 9B, paragraphs [0025, 72, 73]).
Kanowitz discloses a video laryngoscope comprising an image acquisition device used to determine at least one numerical attribute of the trachea, but is silent regarding the quantitative steps associated with the processor for this purpose, specifically wherein the one or more processors are configured to execute the series of computer instruction that cause the video laryngoscope to perform the operations comprising;
processing the images via one or more image segmentation algorithms to identify a tracheal structure;
quantitatively assessing the trachea, based on the identified tracheal structure, to measure at least one numerical attribute of the trachea.
Wibowo teaches a system for determining airway diameter in the same technical field (airway visualization and measurement) comprising;
an endoscope (ref. 490);
image data comprising images (paragraph [0018]);
one or more processors (paragraph [0048], ref. 460) configured to execute the series of computer instructions that cause the endoscope to perform operations comprising;
receiving the images (paragraphs [0018-20]);
processing the images via one or more image segmentation algorithms to identify a tracheal structure (paragraphs [0021 – 25]);
quantitatively assessing the trachea, based on the identified tracheal structure, to measure at least one numerical attribute of the trachea (paragraphs [0026 – 30] disclose quantitively assessing the images to determine anatomical properties/numerical attributes such as diameter, area, thickness, texture, etc.).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the video laryngoscope of Kanowitz such the one or more processors are configured to execute the series of computer instruction that cause the video laryngoscope to perform the operations comprising;
processing the images via one or more image segmentation algorithms to identify a tracheal structure;
quantitatively assessing the trachea, based on the identified tracheal structure, to measure at least one numerical attribute of the trachea, as taught by Wibowo, for the purpose of better obtaining the attributes at a particular location in real time (paragraph [0005]).
Kanowitz is also silent regarding a memory configured to store one or more series of computer instructions. It is noted that Kanowitz discloses analytical software, computers, processors and associated subsystems to perform analyses and algorithmic calculations (paragraph [0072]) which would require a form of storage to store the information required to perform its function, but does not specifically disclose a memory to store the computer instructions.
Leong teaches a video endoscope in the related field of airway examination (paragraph [0020]) comprising a processor (paragraph [0086], ref. 920) and a memory (ref. 990) configured to store one or more series of computer instructions (paragraph [0086]) for the processor to execute (paragraph [0089]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the video laryngoscope of Kanowitz to include a memory configured to store one or more series of computer instructions, as taught by Leong, for the purpose of providing programmable, automated, and repeatable control of the computer instructions.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kanowitz (US 2016/0022943 A1) in view of Wibowo et al. (US 2011/0065982 A1) and in view of Leong et al. (US 2019/0350440 A1) and further in view of Moktali et al. (US 2020/0237200 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Kanowitz in view of Wibowo and in view of Leong discloses the video laryngoscope of claim 2, except wherein the image segmentation algorithm comprises at least one of region growing algorithms, segmentation algorithms based on edge detection, segmentation algorithms based on neural network and segmentation algorithms based on machine learning.
Moktali teaches a digital device for medical image processing (Abstract, paragraph [0003]) in the related field of medical images and analysis that comprises segmentation based upon machine learning and neural networks (paragraph [0032]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the video laryngoscope of Kanowitz in view of Wibowo and in view of Leong such that the segmentation algorithm comprising segmentation based on machine learning, as taught by Moktali, for the purpose of improved accuracy and consistency due to the machine learning models.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kanowitz (US 2016/0022943 A1) in view of Wibowo et al. (US 2011/0065982 A1) and in view of Leong et al. (US 2019/0350440 A1) and further in view of Morris et al. (US 2012/0197086 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Kanowitz in view of Wibowo and in view of Leong discloses the video laryngoscope of claim 6, except wherein the representation of the at least one attribute of the trachea comprises a graphical representation and a numerical representation of the at least one attribute of the trachea.
Morris teaches a medical visualization technique (Abstract) comprising a representation of the at least one attribute of a structure (Fig. 3) comprising a graphical representation (ref. 64) and a numerical representation (ref. 68) of the at least one attribute of the structure). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the video laryngoscope of Kanowitz in view of Wibowo and in view of Leong such that the representation of the at least one attribute of the trachea comprises a graphical representation and a numerical representation of the at least one attribute of the trachea, as taught by Morris, for the purpose of better aiding the user of the video laryngoscope to identify the parameters of the attribute.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kanowitz (US 2016/0022943 A1) in view of Wibowo et al. (US 2011/0065982 A1) and in view of Leong et al. (US 2019/0350440 A1) and further in view of Lia (US 4,980,763).
Regarding claim 10, Kanowitz in view of Wibowo and in view of Leong discloses the video laryngoscope of claim 1, except wherein the image acquisition device has predetermined magnification and object distance and is positioned such that the glottis is in focus, wherein the quantitative assessment of the trachea is based on the predetermined magnification and the object distance.
Lia teaches a system for measuring objects viewed through a medical device (Abstract) comprising an image acquisition device (Fig. 1, ref. 10) having a predetermined magnification and object distance (Fig. 3, ref. 29). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the video laryngoscope of Kanowitz in view of Wibowo and in view of Leong such that the image acquisition device has a predetermined magnification and object distance, as taught by Lia, to better aid in accurate quantitative measurement. Such a modification would result in the quantitative assessment of the trachea being based on the predetermined magnification and the object distance.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kanowitz (US 2016/0022943 A1) in view of Wibowo et al. (US 2011/0065982 A1) and in view of Leong et al. (US 2019/0350440 A1) and further in view of Baba (US 4,633,855).
Regarding claim 12, Kanowitz in view of Wibowo and in view of Leong discloses the video laryngoscope of claim 1, except for further comprising a distance measuring device configured to measure the distance between a lens of the image acquisition device and the tracheal structure, wherein the quantitative assessment of the trachea is further based on the measured distance.
Baba teaches an endoscope (Abstract) comprising an image acquisition device (ref. 12, 13) and a distance measuring device (ref. 36) configured to measure a distance between a lens (refs. 14, 15) of the image acquisition device and a structure (Col. 3, line 12 – Col. 4, line 9). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the video laryngoscope of Kanowitz in view of Wibowo and in view of Leong, such that the laryngoscope further comprising a distance measuring device configured to measure the distance between a lens of the image acquisition device and the tracheal structure, as taught by Baba, for the purpose of better accurately measuring a lens-to-subject distance (Col. 1- 2). It is noted that such a modification would result in the quantitative assessment of the trachea being based on the measured distance.
Claim(s) 14 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kanowitz (US 2016/0022943 A1) in view of Moktali et al. (US 2020/0237200 A1).
Regarding claim 14, Kanowitz the method of claim 13, except wherein analyzing the received images to identify a tracheal structure comprises applying image segmentation algorithms to the captured images to identify the tracheal structure.
Moktali teaches a digital device for medical image processing (Abstract, paragraph [0003]) in the related field of medical images and analysis that comprises segmentation based upon machine learning and neural networks (paragraph [0032]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the video laryngoscope of Kanowitz such that analyzing the received images to identify a tracheal structure comprises applying image segmentation algorithms to the captured images to identify the tracheal structure, as taught by Moktali, for the purpose of improved accuracy and consistency due to the machine learning models of the segmentation.
Regarding claim 15, Kanowitz in view of Moktali discloses the method of claim 14, wherein the image segmentation algorithms comprise at least one of region growing algorithms, segmentation algorithms based on edge detection, segmentation algorithms based on neural network and segmentation algorithms based on machine learning (Moktali teaches machine learning, paragraph [0032]).
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kanowitz (US 2016/0022943 A1) in view of Morris et al. (US 2012/0197086 A1).
Regarding claim 20, Kanowitz discloses the method of claim 18, except wherein the representation of the at least one attribute of the trachea comprises a graphical representation and a numerical representation of the at least one attribute of the trachea.
Morris teaches a medical visualization technique (Abstract) comprising a representation of the at least one attribute of a structure (Fig. 3) comprising a graphical representation (ref. 64) and a numerical representation (ref. 68) of the at least one attribute of the structure). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the video laryngoscope of Kanowitz such that the representation of the at least one attribute of the trachea comprises a graphical representation and a numerical representation of the at least one attribute of the trachea, as taught by Morris, for the purpose of better aiding the user of the video laryngoscope to identify the parameters of the attribute.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892.
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 TESSA M MATTHEWS whose telephone number is (571)272-8817. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 8am - 1pm.
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, Eduardo Robert can be reached at (571) 272-4719. 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.
/TESSA M MATTHEWS/Examiner, Art Unit 3773
Prosecution Insights