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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 01/23/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 - 20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, “configured to store one or more series of instructions” should read “configured to store one or more series of computer instructions” for reasons of clarity and consistency.
Claim 5, “wherein at least one attribute” should read “wherein the at least one attribute”.
Claim 8, “comprises graphical representation and numerical representation” should read “comprises a graphical representation and a numerical representation”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1 – 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1 – 12 are directed towards a video laryngoscope system. However, claim 1 mixed apparatus limitations with method steps of using the apparatus. This is mixing statutory different classes and is indefinite. Claim 1 should be amended to make clear the steps performed are functional recitations describing what the apparatus is capable of doing, such as “the video laryngoscope system is configured to receive images….” or the like. The same should be done for dependent claims which also recite steps without the use of a functional phrase.
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) 1-3, 5 and 10 - 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tata et al. (US 2020/0275824 A1) in view of Han et al. (US 2016/0063720 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Tata discloses a video laryngoscope system (Abstract, paragraph [0030], refs. 10, 12) comprising:
an image acquisition device configured to capture images of a glottis and a trachea of a subject (paragraph [0034], ref. 44);
a memory configured to store one or more series of instructions (paragraph [0046], ref. 261 discloses memory and paragraphs [0006-9] discloses instructions for the system);
one or more processors (paragraph [0046], ref. 260) configured to execute the series of computer instructions stored in the memory (paragraphs [0006-9]).
Tata discloses a video laryngoscope system comprising a camera, memory and processor programmed to execute instructions store in the memory. However, Tata does not make it clear if the system is capable of performing the following steps:
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.
Han teaches system and method for segmenting medical images based on anatomical features (Abstract), in the related field of medical image analysis, wherein the system is configured to perform the steps of
receiving images from memory (paragraph [0006]),
analyzing the received images to identify a landmark (paragraph [0006]); and
quantitatively assessing the landmark based on the identified structure (paragraph [0006]), to determine at least one attribute of the landmark, wherein the at least one attribute of the landmark comprises at least one of a diameter, a radius, a perimeter, or an area (paragraph [0033], “angle, area, volume, or other geometric measures that can be computed from the shape formed by the image”). 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 system of Tata to include the image segmentation techniques and algorithms, as taught by Han, for the purpose of reducing image contouring time and improve accuracy and consistency for user image assessment (paragraph [0002]).
Regarding claim 2, Tata in view of Han discloses the system of claim 1, wherein an image segmentation algorithm is applied to the captured images to identify the tracheal structure (Han, paragraph [0029]).
Regarding claim 3, Tata in view of Han discloses the system of claim 2, 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 (Han, discloses machine learning in paragraph [0027]).
Regarding claim 5, Tata in view of Han discloses the system of claim 1, wherein at least one attribute of the trachea comprises the diameter of the trachea (Tata in view of Han is fully capable of calculating a diameter of the trachea via the algorithm as taught by Han).
Regarding claim 10, Tata in view of Han discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the image acquisition device has predetermined magnification and object distance, and is positioned such that the glottis is in focus (the camera will have built in parameters such as image enlargement or zooming capabilities which are considered inherent to the device via manufacturing specs and the limitation directed towards the glottis is considered to be an intended use limitation in which the field of view and thus the objects within the field of view of dependent upon the placement of the device and patient).
Regarding claim 11, Tata in view of Han discloses the system of claim 1, wherein a reference object with known size is positioned near the glottis and is captured by the image acquisition device (Han, paragraph [0033], in addition this is considered an intended use limitation in which the field of view and thus the objects within the field of view are dependent upon the placement of the device and the patient).
Regarding claim 12, Tata in view of Han discloses the system of claim 1, further comprising a distance measuring device configured to measure the distance between a lens of the image acquisition device and the tracheal structure (Tata discloses an orientation sensor ref. 56 that is fully capable of measuring a distance between the device and an object, paragraph [0036]).
Claim(s) 4 and 6 - 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tata et al. (US 2020/0275824 A1) in view of Han et al. (US 2016/0063720 A1) and in view of Cunningham et al. (US 2013/0038707 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Tata in view of Han discloses the system of claim 1, except wherein a representation of the identified tracheal structure is superimposed on the received image and displayed on a display of the video laryngoscope system. It is noted that Tata discloses a display (Figs. 6A – 6B, ref. 336) capable of displaying a plurality of different images (Figs. 6a-6B), however the specific function of superimposing a representation over an acquired image is not disclosed.
Regarding claim 6, Tata in view of Han discloses the system of claim 1, except wherein a representation of the at least one attribute of the trachea is displayed on a display of the video laryngoscope system. It is noted that Tata does disclose a display (Tata, Figs. 6A – 6B, ref. 336), however a representation of the attribute is not disclosed.
Cunningham teaches an apparatus and method for using augmented reality vision system in surgical procedures (Abstract) comprising the step of superimposing graphical representations of a physical structure onto am image or video of the structure (paragraphs [0010, 37]) for the purpose of allowing the user to visualize more information about the surgical site (paragraph [0037]). 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 system of Tata in view of Han to superimpose a representation of the identified tracheal structure on the received image and displayed on the display, as taught by Cunningham, for the purpose of allowing the user to visualize more information about the surgical site.
Regarding claim 7, Tata in view of Han and in view of Cunningham discloses the system of claim 6, wherein the representation of the at least one attribute of the trachea is superimposed on the received image (Cunningham, paragraph [0037]).
Regarding claim 8, Tata in view of Han and in view of Cunningham discloses the system of claim 6, wherein the representation of the at least one attribute of the trachea comprises graphical representation and numerical representation of the attribute of the trachea (Cunningham discloses an outline of the attribute, thus a graphical representation in addition to a calculated label, e.g. volume as taught by Han).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tata et al. (US 2020/0275824 A1) in view of Han et al. (US 2016/0063720 A1) and in view of Sabetrasekh et al. (US 2020/0178786 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Tata in view of Han discloses the system of claim 1, except wherein the at least one attribute of the trachea is output by a speaker.
Sabetrasekh teaches an analogous system comprising a speaker (paragraph [0085], ref. 1250) that emits an audio signal. 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 system of Tata in view of Han to include the speaker, as taught by Sabetrasekh, for the purpose of providing audio information and feedback to the user as an addiction information input to aid in the surgical procedure.
Claim(s) 13 - x is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Runnels (US 2019/0060596 A1) in view of Han et al. (US 2016/0063720 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Runnels discloses a method for assessing a trachea (Abstract) comprising:
receiving images of a glottis and a trachea of a subject captured by an image acquisition device of a video laryngoscope system (paragraph [0078] discloses an image acquisition device ref. 120 configured to capture images of the glottis);
Runnels is silent regarding quantitative assessment of the trachea and 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.
Han teaches system and method for segmenting medical images based on anatomical features (Abstract), in the related field of medical image analysis, wherein the system is configured to perform the steps of
receiving images for quantitative assessment (paragraph [0006]),
analyzing the received images to identify a landmark (paragraph [0006]); and
quantitatively assessing the landmark based on an identified structure (paragraph [0006]), to determine at least one attribute of the landmark, wherein the at least one attribute of the landmark comprises at least one of a diameter, a radius, a perimeter, or an area (paragraph [0033], “angle, area, volume, or other geometric measures that can be computed from the shape formed by the image”). 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 method of Runnels to include the image segmentation techniques and algorithms, as taught by Han, for the purpose of reducing image contouring time and improve accuracy and consistency for use image assessment (paragraph [0002]).
Regarding claim 14, Runnels in view of Han discloses the method of claim 13, wherein analyzing the received images to identify a tracheal structure comprises applying image segmentation algorithms to the captured images to identify the tracheal structure (Han, paragraph [0029]).
Regarding claim 15, Runnels in view of Han 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 (Han, discloses machine learning in paragraph [0027]).
Regarding claim 17, Runnels in view of Han discloses the method of claim 13, except wherein at least one attribute of the trachea comprises the diameter of the trachea. However, Han, paragraph [0033] discloses the calculation of “angle, area, volume, or other geometric measures that can be computed from the shape” which would include a diameter. 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 attribute from area or volume to be a diameter, since applicant has not disclosed that such solve any stated problem or is anything more than one of numerous shapes or configurations a person ordinary skill in the art would find obvious for the purpose of providing a forming edge in the heating portion or clamp. In re Dailey and Eilers, 149 USPQ 47 (1966).
Claim(s) 16 and 18 - 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Runnels (US 2019/0060596 A1) in view of Han et al. (US 2016/0063720 A1) and in view of Cunningham et al. (US 2013/0038707 A1).
Regarding claim 16, Runnels in view of Han discloses the method of claim 13, except for 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 system. It is noted that Runnels discloses a display (ref. 144) for show images capture by the image acquisition device.
Regarding claim 18, Runnels in view of Han discloses the method of claim 13, except further comprising displaying a representation of the at least one attribute of the trachea on a display of the video laryngoscope system.
Cunningham teaches an apparatus and method for using augmented reality vision system in surgical procedures (Abstract) comprising the step of superimposing graphical representations of a physical structure onto am image or video of the structure (paragraphs [0010, 37]) for the purpose of allowing the user to visualize more information about the surgical site (paragraph [0037]). 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 method of Runnels in view of Han to superimpose a representation of the identified tracheal structure on the received image and displayed on the display, as taught by Cunningham, for the purpose of allowing the user to visualize more information about the surgical site.
Regarding claim 19, Runnels in view of Han and in view of Cunningham discloses the method of claim 18, further comprising superimposing the representation of the at least one attribute of the trachea on the received image (Cunningham, paragraph [0037]).
Regarding claim 20, Runnels in view of Han discloses the method of claim 18, wherein the representation of the at least one attribute of the trachea comprises graphical representation and numerical representation of the attribute of the trachea (Cunningham discloses an outline of the attribute, thus a graphical representation in addition to a calculated label, e.g. volume as taught by Han).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892.
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