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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112b
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.
Claim 56 and dependent claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 56 recites a “computing device”. Based on the specification, it is unclear which of the described elements this is referring to. For example, 0031 states that “Facilities 302 and 304 may each include or be implemented by one or more physical computing devices”, where facilities 302 and 304 refer to “Storage Facility” and “Processing Facility” in fig 3. Additionally, “Processing System 106” is also defined as a computing device at 0044, “One or more of the operations shown in in FIG. 5 may be performed by a computing device such as processing system 106, image processing system 104, any components included therein, and/or any implementation thereof”. The “image processing system 104” is also defined as a computing device, but the claim has recited a computing device in addition to an image processing system. Therefore, the recitation of these elements in the claim are deemed indefinite and interpreted as provided within the rejection below.
Applicant’s amendment is not considered to resolve the indefiniteness issue described from the prior office action above. As mentioned previously, the specification states the following elements as “computing devices”: storage facility 302, processing facility 304, processing system 106, image processing system 104, including “any components included therein, and/or any implementation thereof”. Amending the claim to specify “in communication with an imaging device” does not single out which element of the possible ones is being referred to and therefore eliminate the indefiniteness of the claim, i.e. which element the “computer device” is.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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) 56-60, 66-68, 71-75 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Blanquart US2014/0267656.
Blanquart discloses for claim 56, “A method comprising:
directing, by a computing device (computing device 300; fig 3; 0057) in communication with an imaging device, the imaging device (pixel array described at 0077 in step 830; fig 8) to capture a pseudo dark frame image of an environment of the imaging device (step 870; fig 8), the directing comprising directing the imaging device to capture an image of the environment of the imaging device using a minimal exposure time of the imaging device (the specification defines minimal exposure time as “any suitable substantially short amount of exposure time”; as such, at step 840 describes actuating the pixel array at a sensing interval that corresponds to the pulse interval of the laser emitter, considered to be a suitable short exposure time);
determining, by the computing device, a noise pattern within the pseudo dark frame image (step 870 describes a dark frame for removing pattern noise) associated with a coupling of the imaging device and an image processing system (image signal processor described at 0027; 0045 describes the calibration process with respect to the connection of a camera and a control unit); and
performing, by the computing device, an operation based on the noise pattern (step 880 describes correcting the image frame based on the detected noise)”.
Blanquart discloses for claim 57, “The method of claim 56, wherein the performing the operation comprises transmitting to the image processing system the noise pattern for processing additional images captured by the imaging device (step 890 describes processing additional images for a video stream with the same correction, i.e. noise pattern correction)”.
Blanquart discloses for claim 58, “The method of claim 56, wherein: the image processing system comprises the computing device (0049, 0054, 0057 describes the computer instructions executed at a processor with multiple architectures including a single controller, i.e. the processing system comprising a computing device); and the performing the operation comprises processing, based on the noise pattern, additional images captured by the imaging device (step 890 describes processing additional images for a video stream with the same correction, i.e. noise pattern correction)”.
Blanquart discloses for claim 59, “The method of claim 58, wherein the additional images captured by the imaging device comprise images captured of an additional environment different from the environment (step 890 describes processing additional images for a video stream with the same correction, i.e. noise pattern correction, which is not restricted to a single image view; and 0016 describes the process occurring during a surgical procedure, requiring different views)”.
Blanquart discloses for claim 60, “The method of claim 56, wherein the directing the imaging device to capture the pseudo dark frame image further comprises directing the imaging device to turn off illumination of the imaging device while capturing the pseudo dark frame image (0047 describes the camera system acquiring a number of frames in darkness with a cap 230 over the distal tip (fig 2A), then performing a white balance by turning the light source on, therefore the system must ensure light source is off during the dark frames)”.
Blanquart discloses for claim 66, “The method of claim 56, wherein: the imaging device is in a lumen of an elongate flexible instrument and removable from the lumen; or the imaging device is integrated with the elongate flexible instrument (fig 1)”.
Blanquart discloses for claim 67, “The method of claim 56, wherein the noise pattern associated with the coupling of the imaging device and the image processing system is caused by at least one of: a characteristic of the imaging device; a characteristic of the image processing system; or a characteristic of a cable coupling the imaging device to the image processing system (0045 describes the calibration process performed with respect to the connection of an endoscope with a camera control unit)”.
Blanquart discloses for claim 68, “A system comprising:
an imaging device interface (connection between the endoscope assembly and a camera control unit 0045); and
a processor (computing device 300; fig 3; 0057) configured to:
direct, after an imaging device is coupled to the imaging device interface (coupling described at 0045), the imaging device to capture a pseudo dark frame image of an environment of the imaging device (step 870: At 870, the system and method 800 may comprise creating a dark frame reference for use in removing fixed pattern noise; fig 8), the directing comprising directing the imaging device to capture an image of the environment of the imaging device using a minimal exposure time of the imaging device (the specification defines minimal exposure time as “any suitable substantially short amount of exposure time”; as such, at step 840 describes actuating the pixel array at a sensing interval that corresponds to the pulse interval of the laser emitter, considered to be a suitable short exposure time);
determine a noise pattern within the pseudo dark frame image associated with the system and the imaging device coupled to the imaging device interface (step 870 describes a dark frame for removing pattern noise); and
process, based on the noise pattern, additional images captured by the imaging device coupled to the imaging device interface (step 890 describes processing additional images for a video stream with the same correction, i.e. noise pattern correction)”.
Blanquart discloses for claim 71, “The system of claim 68, wherein: the pseudo dark frame image of the environment of the imaging device comprises an image of a first scene of the environment; and the processor is further configured to direct the imaging device to capture the additional images of a second scene of the environment, wherein the second scene is different from the first scene (step 890 describes processing additional images for a video stream with the same correction, i.e. noise pattern correction, which is not restricted to a single image view; and 0016 describes the process occurring during a surgical procedure, requiring different views)”.
Blanquart discloses for claim 72, “The system of claim 68, wherein the directing the imaging device to capture the pseudo dark frame image further comprises directing the imaging device to turn off illumination of the imaging device while capturing the pseudo dark frame image (0047 describes the camera system acquiring a number of frames in darkness with a cap 230 over the distal tip (fig 2A), then performing a white balance by turning the light source on, therefore the system must ensure light source is off during the dark frames)”.
Blanquart discloses for claim 73, “The system of claim 72, wherein the additional images are captured with illumination of the imaging device turned on (0047 describes the camera system acquiring a number of frames in darkness with a cap 230 over the distal tip (fig 2A), then performing a white balance by turning the light source on, therefore the system must ensure light source is off during the dark frames)”.
Blanquart discloses for claim 74, “A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions executable by a processor to:
direct an imaging device to capture a set of one or more pseudo dark frame images of an environment of the imaging device (step 870: At 870, the system and method 800 may comprise creating a dark frame reference for use in removing fixed pattern noise; fig 8), the directing comprising directing the imaging device to capture an image of the environment of the imaging device using a minimal exposure time of the imaging device (the specification defines minimal exposure time as “any suitable substantially short amount of exposure time”; as such, at step 840 describes actuating the pixel array at a sensing interval that corresponds to the pulse interval of the laser emitter, considered to be a suitable short exposure time);
determine a noise pattern within the set of one or more pseudo dark frame images associated with a coupling of the imaging device to an image processing system (step 870 describes a dark frame for removing pattern noise); and
provide the noise pattern for processing of additional images captured by the imaging device (step 890 describes processing additional images for a video stream with the same correction, i.e. noise pattern correction)”.
Blanquart discloses for claim 75, “The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 74, wherein: the providing the noise pattern comprises storing the noise pattern in a memory; and the instructions, when executed, further cause the processor to process, based on the noise pattern, the additional images (0047 describes acquiring a number of dark frames for dark correction data, storing these in memory and retrieving from memory)”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 61, 62, 64 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blanquart and further in view of Keesling US2015/0350629.
Blanquart does not disclose for claim 61, “The method of claim 56, further comprising directing, by the computing device, the imaging device to capture a set of pseudo dark frame images of the environment of the imaging device, the set of pseudo dark frame images including the pseudo dark frame image; and wherein the determining the noise pattern comprises applying a high-frequency filter to the set of pseudo dark frame images”. Keesling teaches in the same field of endeavor, advanced noise removal techniques using high pass filters (0073). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the modification of Keesling into the invention of Blanquart in order to configure the method e.g. as claimed because it provides advanced noise removal to facilitate improved image quality.
Blanquart discloses for claim 62, “The method of claim 61, wherein the directing the imaging device to capture the set of pseudo dark frame images comprises directing the imaging device to capture the set of pseudo dark frame images for a time period during an initialization process of the imaging device (0033 describes the correction process occurring for a calibration step)”.
Blanquart discloses for claim 64, “The method of claim 62, wherein the determining the noise pattern comprises determining the noise pattern during the initialization process of the imaging device (0045 describes the calibration upon initiating the procedure)”.
Claim(s) 63 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blanquart as applied to claim 62 above, and further in view of Adams US2012/0107763.
Blanquart does not disclose for claim 63, “The method of claim 62, wherein the time period has a duration between approximately three and five seconds”. Blanquart discusses a calibration process but is silent to the details regarding a time duration. Adams teaches in the same field of endeavor, noise generating sources, specifically other medical equipment present in the patient care environment at frequencies between 100 kHz and 1 MHz, lasting for approximately 1 and 10 seconds for which calibration should be accounted for 0092). Since Blanquart fails to disclose the nature of the time duration it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used any time duration known in the art, including the one taught by Adams to achieve the claimed time duration.
Claim(s) 65 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blanquart as applied to claim 56 above, and further in view of St. John US2023/0218154.
Blanquart does not disclose for claim 65, “The method of claim 56, wherein: performing the operation comprises removing the noise pattern from an additional image captured by the imaging device; the pseudo dark image frame is captured with illumination of the imaging device turned off and without covering a lens of the imaging device; and the additional image is captured with illumination of the imaging device turned on”. The calibration that Blanquart does disclose relates to the fixed noise inherent to an imager which is determined by acquiring a dark frame with no illumination including ambient light, i.e. with the cap 230 covering the imaging tip. This allows for calibration with respect to the inherent characteristics of the imager, but does not account for a noise pattern due to ambient light. St. John teaches in the same field of endeavor such calibration, i.e. accounting for the noise created by ambient illumination by acquiring an image without a cap or covering of the lens (0043). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the modification of St. John into the invention of Blanquart in order to configure the method e.g. as claimed because it allows for calibration with respect to ambient light potentially helping to increase image quality.
Claim(s) 69, 70 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blanquart as applied to claim 69 above, and further in view of Harada US20190373197.
Blanquart does not disclose for claim 69, “The system of claim 68, wherein: the imaging device is coupled to the imaging device interface via a cable; and the noise pattern is associated with an image signal and a clock signal transmitted on the cable”. Harada teaches in the same field of endeavor, noise reduction processing for an endoscope with an imaging device connected to the processor via a cable where the noise is with respect to the image signal and a clock signal (fig 2; 0047: noise reduction processing, on a digital imaging signal output from the imaging device 20 via the transmission cable 3). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the modification of Harada into the invention of Blanquart in order to configure the system e.g. as claimed because it allows for, via a connectable cable, a modular endoscope to be operated at a location removed from the processor.
Modified Blanquart as in claim 69 discloses for claim 70, “The system of claim 68, wherein the imaging device is coupled to the imaging device interface via a cable, and the cable is at least 0.5 meters in length (Harada: 0034 describes transmission cable 3 having a length of a few meters)”.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/8/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Blanquart does not read on the details of claim 56 because the reference refers to “two different images, a first ‘sensing reflected electromagnetic radiation from said pulse with a pixel array to create an image frame and a second ‘sensing the pixel array while the cap is in place’”. The imaging frame captured at 830 is the image to be noise corrected in step 880. The dark frame image was cited to be the image captured at step 870, i.e. creating a dark frame reference for removing fixed pattern noise. As such, it is unclear how capturing an image to be corrected of fixed pattern noise makes the reference not read on the claimed invention. These images are two different image and therefore the citation of the dark frame image reads on the claim limitation.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO892.
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 JAE K WOO whose telephone number is (571)272-0837. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-2:30p, 6p-9p.
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, Anhtuan Nguyen can be reached at (571) 272-4963. 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.
/Jae Woo/Examiner, Art Unit 3795
/ANH TUAN T NGUYEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3795
02/05/26