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 .
This Office Action is in response to the amendments dated December 29, 2025.
Claims 1-5, 7-20, and 22-24 are pending.
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.
Claim 24 is 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. Specifically, it is unclear what is meant by “wherein the indications of the movement criteria and of the second movement criteria comprise animations”. The only use of the term “animations” in the present specification is in paragraph [0046] which states that “the monitor device may show animations of the most popular functions together with a text of the associated function”. It is unclear what the animations are (e.g., cartoons, static displays, text boxes, etc.), what the “most popular functions” are, or what function the animation perform. For purposes of examination, the phrase “wherein the indications of the movement criteria and of the second movement criteria comprise animations” is interpreted as cartoon animations that present a motion picture of captured moving/movement images.
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.
The present rejection(s) reference specific passages from cited prior art. However, Applicant is advised that the rejections are based on the entirety of each cited prior art. That is, each cited prior art reference “must be considered in its entirety”. Therefore, Applicant is advised to review all portions of the cited prior art if traversing a rejection based on the cited prior art.
Claims 1-5, 13, 15-18, 20, and 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirano et al. (US PGPUB 2018/0288361 – “Hirano”) in view of Ranney (US PGPUB 2014/0365981 – “Ranney”).
Regarding Claim 1, Hirano discloses:
A method for controlling one or more functions in a medical visualisation system comprising a visualisation device (Hirano FIG. 1, endoscope apparatus 1) having an insertion cord (Hirano FIG. 1, insertion portion 2) extending from a proximal cord end to a distal cord end, and comprising an image sensor (Hirano FIG. 1, image pickup device 10) configured to generate image data indicative of a view at the distal cord end of the insertion cord, the method comprising:
receiving a plurality of image frames captured by the image sensor of the visualization device, the plurality of image frames including a first series of image frames (Hirano paragraph [0009], “An endoscope image recording method according to another aspect of the present invention includes: recording…a first image acquired by an image sensor when recording of an image…and recording…a second image acquired by the image sensor”),
determining based on the first series of image frames a movement pattern of the distal cord end of the insertion cord (Hirano FIG. 10, block S41; Hirano paragraph [0154], “when the user is pressing the distal end portion 2a of the insertion portion 2 into the examination target, an endoscope image changes”).
Hirano FIG. 10 discloses in steps S44, S5, S25, S4 and then back to S41, S42, and S2 a method in which the distal cord end is held still for a predetermined time period (S43 to S44 – NO), and then stopping recording. If movement of the distal cord end resumes (S41, S42-YES), then recording starts up again (S2). Thus, Hirano discloses determining whether the movement pattern satisfies movement criteria comprising: holding the distal cord end still for a predetermined time period (Hirano FIG. 10, steps S43 to S44-NO), and then if movement is later detected (“in accordance with the movement pattern satisfying the movement criteria” – Hirano FIG. 10, steps S41, S42-YES), then recording is restarted (“activating a first function of the medical visualisation system” – Hirano FIG. 10, S42 and S2).
However, Hirano does not explicitly disclose turning on the camera (“activating a first function of the medical visualisation system”) if the image sensor (camera) movement is up/down or side-to-side.
Ranney is analogous art that teaches turning on a camera if the camera movement is up/down or side-to-side (Ranney FIG. 1, motion sensor 102 and recording module 104 in mobile device; Ranney paragraph [0016], “The recording module 104 is arranged to control and monitor the activation and deactivation of a microphone, video camera or other media capturing tool on the mobile device 104”; Ranney FIG. 2, block 201 detect motion on mobile device; block 204, determine if acceleration parameters of motion exceed a threshold; block 212, activate camera is threshold is exceeded; see also Ranney paragraph [0016] and Ranney paragraph mobile device having a controller 180 that interacts with a movement sensor 141 and a camera 142; Ranney paragraph [0121], “when a movement of the terminal main body 100 is sensed by the motion sensor 141, the controller 180 activates the camera sensor 142 in response to the movement of the terminal main body 100”; see also Ranney paragraph [0014], “The motion sensor 102 is arranged to detect motion e.g., when the mobile device 100 is shaken, swung or physically moved. In various embodiments, for example, the motion sensor is an accelerometer, although any suitable motion detecting sensor may be used. Various implementations of the motion sensor involve detecting a movement or acceleration of the device along one, two or three axes in three dimensional space (e.g., the x, y, z axes of a Cartesian coordinate system.) The motion sensor detects the motion and transmits one or more values indicating the motion to the motion activation determination module 106.”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Ranney’s method of using physical movement of a camera to turn it on with the method disclosed by Hirano. A person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine these prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of a method for controlling activation of a camera such that “the user is not required to find and press a button on the device” (Ranney paragraph [0006]).
Regarding Claim 2, Hirano in view of Ranney teaches the features of Claim 1, as described above.
Hirano further discloses wherein the method further comprises, in accordance with the movement pattern satisfying a second movement criterion of the one or more movement criteria (Hirano FIG. 10, blocks S43 and S44; Hirano paragraph [0158], “After S3, the controller 11 executes image change amount calculation processing the same as the processing at S41 (S43), and determines whether the change amount of the live image is within the predetermined range (S44)”; Examiner interprets the first movement criteria as an image change amount before recording begins, and the second movement criteria as an image change amount after always-on recording began), activating a second function of the medical visualisation system (Hirano FIG. 10, block S5; Hirano paragraph [0159], “the controller 11 ends the recording of the live image in the sub recording unit 13b (S5)”).
Regarding Claim 3, Hirano in view of Ranney teaches the features of Claim 2, as described above.
Hirano further discloses wherein the first function or the second function is a capture image function selected from a group comprising saving a frame of the plurality of image frames, starting or stopping a recording of the image data (Hirano FIG. 10, block S2; Hirano paragraph [0156], “When it is determined that the change amount of the live image is within the predetermined range based on the result of the calculation at S41 (YES at S42), the controller 11 starts recording of the live image”), activating a filter, changing a contrast of the plurality of image frames captured by the image sensor, or changing a zoom factor of the image frames.
Regarding Claim 4, Hirano in view of Ranney teaches the features of Claim 2, as described above.
Hirano further discloses wherein the first function or the second function is a video capture function comprising a start video capture function and a stop video capture function, wherein the start video capture function and the stop video capture function are alternately activated by, respectively, activation of the first function or the second function (Hirano FIG. 10, wherein block S2 and S5 are alternately activated as the flow-chart returns to block S41 from query block S4).
Regarding Claim 5, Hirano in view of Ranney teaches the features of Claim 4, as described above.
Hirano further discloses displaying a visual indication when the first function and/or the second function is activated (Hirano FIG. 10, block S3: “Display “Always-On Recording”).
Regarding Claim 13, Hirano in view of Ranney teaches the features of method of Claim 1, as described above.
Hirano further discloses:
A medical visualisation system (Hirano FIG. 1, endoscope apparatus 1) comprising:
a monitor device (Hirano FIG. 1, body unit 3) comprising a processing unit (Hirano FIG. 1, controller 11) configured to cause the monitor device to perform the method of claim 1 (Hirano paragraphs [0029] – [0030]), the method comprising receiving the image data as the image data is being generated by the image sensor, the image data comprising the plurality of image frames (Hirano paragraph [0048], “The user can record a still image or a moving image in the main recording unit 13a by instructing recording of an endoscope image through operation of the operation unit 14”).
Regarding Claim 15, Hirano in view of Ranney teaches the features of Claim 13, as described above.
Hirano further discloses wherein the processing unit is operable to activate a second function in accordance with the movement pattern satisfying a second movement criterion of the one or more movement criteria (Hirano FIG. 10, block S5; Hirano paragraph [0159], “the controller 11 ends the recording of the live image in the sub recording unit 13b (S5)”).
Regarding Claim 16, Hirano in view of Ranney teaches the features of Claim 15, as described above.
Hirano further discloses wherein the first function or the second function is one of a capture image functions causing the processing unit to save a frame received from the image sensor in a memory of the monitor device, starting or stopping a recording of the image data to be saved in the memory (Hirano FIG. 10, block S2; Hirano paragraph [0156], “When it is determined that the change amount of the live image is within the predetermined range based on the result of the calculation at S41 (YES at S42), the controller 11 starts recording of the live image”), activation or deactivation of a filter, change of contrast of image frames captured by the image sensor, or change of a zoom factor of the image frames captured by the image sensor.
Regarding Claim 17, Hirano in view of Ranney teaches the features of Claim 16, as described above.
Hirano further discloses wherein the monitor device is further configured to, in response to the first function and/or the second function being activated, cause display of a visual indication on a display, the visual indication being indicative of activation of the first function and/or the second function (Hirano FIG. 10, block S3: “Display “Always-On Recording”).
Regarding Claim 18, Hirano in view of Ranney teaches the method of Claim 1, as described above.
Hirano further discloses:
A monitor device (Hirano FIG. 1, controller 11) for a medical visualization system (Hirano FIG. 1, endoscope apparatus 1), the monitor device comprising:
memory (Hirano FIG. 1, ROM 11b and RAM 11c); and
a processing unit (Hirano FIG. 1, CPU 11a) configured cause the monitor device to perform the method of claim 1 as the image data is being generated by the image sensor of the visualization device, the image data comprising the plurality of image frames (Hirano paragraphs [0029] – [0030]).
Regarding Claim 20, Hirano in view of Ranney teaches the features of Claim 18, as described above.
Hirano further discloses wherein the processing unit is configured to determine that the distal cord end is held still is based upon the comparison of the image features, wherein it is determined that the distal cord end is held still if the difference between image features of image frames in the first series of image frames are less than a pre-set threshold (Hirano FIG. 10, blocks S42 and S44 described above).
Regarding Claim 22, Hirano in view of Ranney teaches the features of Claim 18, as described above.
Hirano further disclosed wherein the movement criteria further comprises, after moving the distal cord end down, holding the distal cord end still for a second predetermined time period, or after moving the distal cord end to the second side, holding the distal cord end still for a third predetermined time period (Hirano FIG. 10 discloses in steps S44, S5, S25, S4 and then back to S41, S42, and S2 a method in which the distal cord end is held still for a predetermined time period (S43 to S44 – NO), and then stopping recording. If movement of the distal cord end resumes (S41, S42-YES), then recording starts up again (S2). The process then cycles back to step S41).
Regarding Claim 23, Hirano in view of Ranney teaches the features of Claim 1, as described above.
Hirano further discloses presenting with a display indications of the movement criteria and the first function activated when the movement criteria is satisfied, and presenting with the display indications of a second movement criteria and a second function activated when the second movement criteria is satisfied (Hirano FIG. 10, block S3, display “always-on recording” which occurs when the first iteration of movement (i.e., at a first time) is detected in block S42, and then occurs when the process returns to block S41 and detects the second iteration of movement in block S42 (i.e., at a second time).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirano et al. (US PGPUB 2018/0288361 – “Hirano”) in view of Ranney (US PGPUB 2014/0365981 – “Ranney”) and Yanagihara (US PGPUB 2020/0069149 – “Yanagihara”).
Regarding Claim 7, Hirano in view of Ranney teaches the features of Claim 1, as described above.
Hirano in view of Ranney does not explicitly teach wherein the predetermined time period is between 0.5-10 seconds.
Yanagihara teaches the predetermined time period in which the distal cord end is still (Yanagihara paragraph [0060], “standby mode control portion 41 may also be configured to perform switching of the operation modes based on a determination as to whether or not the insertion portion 11 of the wireless endoscope 1 has been left out of use for observation (hereinafter called “left-out-of-use determination”)…If the sensor portion 51 has a motion sensor or acceleration sensor, the standby mode control portion 41 may also determine, based on a detection result of the motion sensor or acceleration sensor that the insertion portion 11 is not moved and is left out of use.”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Yanagihara’s “out of use” setting with the method disclosed by Hirano. A person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine these prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of a method that conserves power when image capture is not required.
Hirano in view of Yanagihara does not explicitly teach that the motionless period of time for the insertion cord is between 0.5-10 seconds. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the motionless period of time between 0.5-10 seconds as a matter of routine optimization, since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. “ In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPG 233,235 (CCPS 1955). See also MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
Furthermore, it appears that Applicant’s specification places no criticality on the range claimed. Paragraphs [0016] and [0038] of Applicant’s disclosure states that the time ranges may or could be used, but does not explain what advantage they provide nor what application is improved. As such, there appears to be nothing critical about these ranges. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A).
Claims 8, 10, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirano et al. (US PGPUB 2018/0288361 – “Hirano”) in view of Ranney (US PGPUB 2014/0365981 – “Ranney”) and Bendall et al. (US PGPUB 2015/0348253 – “Bendall”).
Regarding Claim 8, Hirano in view of Ranney teaches the features of Claim 1, as described above.
Although Hirano discloses in paragraph [0154] that an image change indicates movement of the insertion portion/cord, Bendall explicitly teaches determining the movement pattern of the distal cord end is achieved by comparing image features of each image frame in the first series of image frames, with image features of a subsequent or previous image frame in the first series of image frames (Bendall paragraph [0037], “when the identifiable detail of the feature (e.g., the sharp brightness transition) is depicted in the second image at a substantially different location (e.g., pixel location (60, 50)), it may be determined that there has been substantial movement between the images”.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Bendall’s method of detecting insertion portion/cord movement with the method taught by Hirano in view of Ranney. A person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine these prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of a method that detects movement of an insertion portion/cord without the use of in vivo sensors, which may be prone to failure and/or require additional maintenance.
Regarding Claim 10, Hirano in view of Ranney and Bendall teaches the features of Claim 8, as described above.
Hirano further discloses wherein the determination that the distal cord end is held still is based upon the comparison of the image features, wherein it is determined that the distal cord end is held still if a difference between image features of image frames in the first series of image frames are less than a pre-set threshold (Hirano FIG. 10, blocks S42 and S44 described above).
Regarding Claim 19, Hirano in view of Ranney teaches the features of Claim 18, as described above.
Although Hirano discloses in paragraph [0154] that an image change indicates movement of the insertion portion/cord, Bendall explicitly teaches wherein the processing unit (Bendall FIG. 1, CPU 38) is configured to determine the movement pattern of the distal cord end by comparing image features for each image frame in the first series of image frames with image features of a subsequent or previous image frame in the first series of image frames (Bendall paragraph [0037], “when the identifiable detail of the feature (e.g., the sharp brightness transition) is depicted in the second image at a substantially different location (e.g., pixel location (60, 50)), it may be determined that there has been substantial movement between the images”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Bendall’s processor configured to detecting insertion portion/cord movement with the method disclosed by Hirano. A person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine these prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of a method that detects movement of an insertion portion/cord without the use of in vivo sensors, which may be prone to failure and/or require additional maintenance.
Claims 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirano et al. (US PGPUB 2018/0288361 – “Hirano”) in view of Ranney (US PGPUB 2014/0365981 – “Ranney”), Bendall et al. (US PGPUB 2015/0348253 – “Bendall”), and Glinec et al. (US PGPUB 2018/0296080 – “Glinec”).
Regarding Claim 9, Hirano in view of Ranney and Bendall teaches the features of Claim 8, as described above.
Hirano in view of Ranney and Bendall does not explicitly teach wherein the image features of the image frames comprise corners, blobs, edges and/or pixel colour information.
Glinec teaches wherein the image features of the image frames comprise corners, blobs, edges and/or pixel colour information (Glinec paragraph [0031], “Edge features and other salient features are tracked from image to image and used to characterize the surface contour as well as camera motion.”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Glinec’s edge/color analysis with the method taught by Hirano in view of Ranney and Bendall. A person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine these prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of a method that has redundancy steps for comparing images by using both illumination levels (Bendall) and edges/color (Glinec).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirano et al. (US PGPUB 2018/0288361 – “Hirano”) in view of Ranney (US PGPUB 2014/0365981 – “Ranney”) and Olsson et al. (US Patent 8,547,428 – “Olsson”).
Regarding Claim 11, Hirano in view of Ranney teaches the features of Claim 1, as described above.
Hirano in view of Ranney does not explicitly disclose wherein the determination of the movement pattern of the distal cord end is based upon feature detection or motion vector processing.
Olsson teaches wherein the determination of the movement pattern of the distal cord end is based upon feature detection or motion vector processing (Olsson col. 8, lines 29-32, “FIG. 3B is a schematic diagram illustrating a motion vector processing embodiment… the length of each of these pointing vectors is set to the distance that the inspection cameras moves”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Olsson’s use of motion vectors with the method taught by Hirano in view of Ranney. A person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine these prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of a method that tracks an insertion cord/portion over multiple contiguous distances (see Olsson col. 8, lines 24-41).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirano et al. (US PGPUB 2018/0288361 – “Hirano”) in view of Ranney (US PGPUB 2014/0365981 – “Ranney”) and Matsui (US PGPUB 2008/0086028 – “Matsui”).
Regarding Claim 12, Hirano in view of Ranney teaches the features of Claim 1, as described above.
Hirano in view of Ranney does not explicitly teach further comprising displaying the plurality of image frames on a display.
Matsui teaches displaying the plurality of image frames on a display (Matsui FIG. 4, thumbnail images SP1-SP5 displayed in subimage display area 140 of display unit 12 shown in Matsui FIG. 2).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Matsui’s display of temporally different images with the method taught by Hirano in view of Ranney. A person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine these prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of a method that allows a user to select a particular image for closer examination on a large screen (see Matsui paragraph [0048]).
further comprising displaying the plurality of image frames on a display.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirano et al. (US PGPUB 2018/0288361 – “Hirano”) in view of Ranney (US PGPUB 2014/0365981 – “Ranney”) and Dunham et al. (US Patent 6,210,337 – “Dunham”).
Regarding Claim 14, Hirano in view of Ranney teaches the features of Claim 13, as described above.
Hirano further discloses:
the visualization device (Hirano FIG. 1, insertion portion 2 with image pickup device 10).
Hirano in view of Ranney does not explicitly teach wherein the visualisation device comprises a handle at the proximal cord end, the handle comprises an input mechanism adapted to receive an input in one or more input directions, and wherein the input in the one or more input directions causes a distal portion of the insertion cord to bend in a corresponding bending direction.
Dunham teaches a handle (Dunham FIG. 1, handle 10) at the proximal cord end (Dunham FIG. 1, endoscope tube 12), the handle comprises an input mechanism (Dunham FIG. 1, left-right control knob 24 and up-down control knob 26) adapted to receive an input in one or more input directions, and wherein the input in the one or more input directions causes a distal portion of the insertion cord to bend in a corresponding bending direction.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Dunham’s up/down and left/right control knobs with the medical visualization system taught by Hirano in view of Ranney. A person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine these prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of an endoscope having a flexible insertion portion capable of being articulated according to manual inputs from a user.
further comprising the visualization device, wherein the visualisation device comprises a handle at the proximal cord end, the handle comprises an input mechanism adapted to receive an input in one or more input directions, and wherein the input in the one or more input directions causes a distal portion of the insertion cord to bend in a corresponding bending direction.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirano et al. (US PGPUB 2018/0288361 – “Hirano”) in view of Ranney (US PGPUB 2014/0365981 – “Ranney”) and Tanaka et al. (US Patent 6,435,969 – “Tanaka”).
Regarding Claim 24, Hirano in view of Ranney teaches the features of Claim 23, as described above.
Hirano in view of Ranney does not explicitly teach wherein the indications of the movement criteria and of the second movement criteria comprise animations.
Tanaka teaches wherein the indications of the movement criteria and of the second movement criteria comprise animations (Tanaka col. 18, lines 4-12, “Another feature of the present invention is the ability of the user to compose a series of captured and pre-defined images into an animation. The animation may be made up of a logical sequence of frames that simulate motion, or may be any arbitrary sequential display of images that are stored in the memory of the removable game cartridge.”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Tanaka’s animation method with the method taught by Hirano in view of Ranney. A person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine these prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of a method that can display captured images as animations, in order to protect patient confidentiality when displaying patient images.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 6, filed December 29, 2025, with respect to the objection to Claims 13-14 have been fully considered and are persuasive in view of the present amendment(s). The objection to Claims 13-14 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 6, filed December 29, 2025, with respect to the rejection of Claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive in view of the present amendment(s). The rejection of Claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) has been withdrawn. However, Applicant’s attention is drawn to the rejection of newly-added Claim 24 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as described above.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 6-8, filed December 29, 2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of Claims 1-6, 13, 15-18, and 20 under 35 U.S.C.102, and their respective dependent claims have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Ranney (US PGPUB 2014/03565981 – “Ranney”). Applicant’s arguments against the
35 U.S.C. 102 rejection of exemplary Claim 1 is that Hirano et al. (US PGPUB 2018/0288361 – “Hirano”) does not teach the newly-added features of Claim 1 of turning on the camera (“activating a first function of the medical visualisation system”) if the image sensor (camera) movement is up/down or side-to-side. However, as described above, Ranney is analogous art that teaches turning on a camera if the camera movement is up/down or side-to-side (Ranney FIG. 1, motion sensor 102 and recording module 104 in mobile device; Ranney paragraph [0016], “The recording module 104 is arranged to control and monitor the activation and deactivation of a microphone, video camera or other media capturing tool on the mobile device 104”).
Therefore, the new rejection of Claims 1-5, 7-20, and 22-24, and their respective dependent claims, under 35 U.S.C. 103 are maintained.
Conclusion
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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure includes:
Sakai et al. (US PGPUB 2006/0237626 – “Sakai”), which teaches in Sakai FIG. 3 and paragraphs [0072] – [0073] that a camera is turned on when a motion detector thereon detects up/down lifting movement (“when the digital camera 1 is lifted by a user, the motion sensor S1 detects the movement caused by the lifting. In response to the detection by the motion sensor S1, the CPU 30 brings the analog switch SW1 into the connected state so that the power can be supplied from the battery BT to each element.”).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JIM BOICE whose telephone number is (571)272-6565. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00am - 5:00pm Eastern.
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.
JIM BOICE
Examiner
Art Unit 3795
/JAMES EDWARD BOICE/Examiner, Art Unit 3795
/ANH TUAN T NGUYEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3795
03/21/26