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 .
Disposition of Claims
Claims 1-18 are pending and rejected.
Claim Objections
Claims 17-18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding Claim 17, Claim 17 recites “wherein an evaluation unit which is configured to evaluate the first image and/or the second image in relation to a hemoglobin index, a water index, an oxygen index or an oxygen-infrared index, with the result that a hemoglobin content, a water content, an oxygen concentration, and/or a presence of an adjuvant, in particular a fluorescent substance, is determinable [emphasis added]”. This is grammatically incorrect and appropriate correction is required. Examiner recommends amending “wherein an evaluation unit which is configured to…” to read “further comprising an evaluation unit configured to…”.
Regarding Claim 18, Claim 18 recites “wherein a display unit which is configured for continuous, parallel, simultaneous, overlaid and/or correlated display of the piece of first image information, the piece of second image information, the piece of dual image information, the stereoscopically formed piece of spatial image information, and/or the piece of additional image information [emphasis added]”. This is grammatically incorrect and appropriate correction is required. Examiner recommends amending “wherein a display unit which is configured for…” to read “further comprising a display unit configured for…”.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitations uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Such claim limitations are:
“a first filter positioning device” for introducing the first filter into the first optical path, as recited in Claim 1 and described in Paras. [22] & [73] of Applicant’s specification.
“a second filter positioning device” for introducing the second filter into the second optical path, as recited in Claim 1 and described in Paras. [22] & [74] of Applicant’s specification.
“a third filter positioning device” for introducing the third filter into the first optical path and/or the second optical path, as recited in Claim 2 and described in Para. [22] of Applicant’s specification.
“a fourth filter positioning device” for introducing the fourth filter into the first optical path and/or the second optical path, as recited in Claim 2 and described in Para. [22] of Applicant’s specification.
“a further filter positioning device” for introducing the further filter into the first optical path and/or second optical path, as recited in Claim 2 and described in Para. [22] of Applicant’s specification.
“an evaluation unit… configured to evaluate the first image and/or the second image” in Claim 17, as described in Para. [68] of Applicant’s specification.
“a display unit… configured for… display of first image information” in Claim 18, as described in Para. [70] of Applicant’s specification.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitations recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Such claim limitations are:
“means of the first optical path” in Claims 1 & 14.
“means of the second optical path” in Claims 1 & 14.
“means of a respective filtered piece of image information” in Claim 1.
“means of a first filter positioning device” in Claim 1.
“means of a second filter positioning device” in Claim 1.
“means of a third filter positioning device” in Claim 2.
“means of a fourth filter positioning device” in Claim 2.
“means of a further filter positioning device” in Claim 2.
“means of an input” in Claim 5.
“means of the filter positioning system” in Claim 6.
“means of being pushed in”, “means of being pivoted in” and “means of being screwed in” in Claim 8.
“means of the respective drive” in Claim 9.
“means of the different filter spectra” in Claim 11.
“means of two filters” in Claim 11.
Because these claim limitations are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 1-18 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.
Regarding Claim 1, the phrase "in particular" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention (see MPEP § 2173.05(d)). For the purpose of examination, the limitation(s) after this phrase are considered optional limitations.
Regarding Claim 1, Claim 1 recites the limitation “wherein the respective optical path extends between an observation region and the respective image sensor [emphasis added]” on Lines 5-7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claims. For the purpose of examination, “wherein the respective optical path extends between an observation region and the respective image sensor” is being interpreted as “wherein the first and second optical paths extend between an observation region and the first and second image sensors, respectively”.
Regarding Claim 1, Claim 1 recites the limitation “depending on the light spectrum by means of a respective filtered piece of image information from the first image and/or the second image [emphasis added]” on Lines 16-17. It is unclear whether this “light spectrum” is the same as the “light spectrum [of the light source] (previously recited on Lines 2-3 of Claim 1), the “first filter spectrum” (previously recited on Line 13 of Claim 1), the “second filter spectrum” (previously recited on Line 14 of Claim 1), or a separate, different light spectrum. For the purpose of examination, “depending on the light spectrum by means of a respective filtered piece of image information from the first image and/or the second image” is being interpreted as “depending on a filtered light spectrum by means of a filtered piece of image information from the first image and/or a filtered piece of image information from the second image, respectively”.
Regarding Claim 1, Claim 1 recites the limitation “a filtered piece of image information from the first image and/or a filtered piece of image information from the second image” on Lines 21-22. It is unclear whether these filtered pieces of image information from the first and second images are the same as the “respective filtered piece of image information” previously recited on Lines 16-17, or separate, different filtered pieces of information. For the purpose of examination and in view of the previous interpretation above, “a filtered piece of image information from the first image and/or a filtered piece of image information from the second image” is being interpreted as “the filtered piece of image information from the first image and/or the filtered piece of image information from the second image”.
Regarding Claim 1, Claim 1 recites the limitation “depending on the respective filter introduced in into the respective optical path, render/renders evaluable different spectral regions of the respective image [emphasis added]” on Lines 22-25. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. For the purpose of examination, “depending on the respective filter introduced in into the respective optical path, render/renders evaluable different spectral regions of the respective image” is being interpreted as “depending on the first filter and/or the second filter introduced in into the first optical path and/or the second optical path, respectively, render/renders evaluable different spectral regions of the first image and/or the second image, respectively”.
Regarding Claim 3, Claim 3 recites the limitation “the third filter, the fourth filter and/or the further filter [emphasis added]” on Lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. For the purpose of examination, “the third filter, the fourth filter and/or the further filter” is being interpreted as “a third filter, a fourth filter and/or a further filter”.
Regarding Claim 4, Claim 4 recites the limitation “the third filter, the fourth filter and/or the further filter [emphasis added]” on Lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. For the purpose of examination, “the third filter, the fourth filter and/or the further filter” is being interpreted as “a third filter, a fourth filter and/or a further filter”.
Regarding Claim 4, the phrase "in particular" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention (see MPEP § 2173.05(d)). For the purpose of examination, the limitation(s) after this phrase are considered optional limitations.
Regarding Claim 5, Claim 5 recites the limitation “the third filter, the fourth filter and/or the further filter [emphasis added]” on Lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. For the purpose of examination, “the third filter, the fourth filter and/or the further filter” is being interpreted as “a third filter, a fourth filter and/or a further filter”.
Regarding Claim 5, the phrase "in particular" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention (see MPEP § 2173.05(d)). For the purpose of examination, the limitation(s) after this phrase are considered optional limitations.
Regarding Claim 5, the phrase "can be" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention (see MPEP § 2173.05(d)). For the purpose of examination, the limitation(s) after this phrase are considered optional limitations.
Regarding Claim 5, the phrase "for example" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention (see MPEP § 2173.05(d)). For the purpose of examination, the limitation(s) after this phrase are considered optional limitations.
Regarding Claim 6, Claim 6 recites “the filter positioning device associated with a respective mutually assigned filter” on Lines 2-3. It is unclear whether this “filter positioning device associated with a respective mutually assigned filter” is the same as the “first filter positioning device”, previously recited on Line 19 of Claim 1, the “second filter positioning device”, previously recited on Lines 19-20 of Claim 1, or a separate, different filter positioning device. For the purpose of examination, “the filter positioning device associated with a respective mutually assigned filter” is being interpreted as “the first filter positioning device and/or the second filter positioning device associated with a respective mutually assigned filter”.
Regarding Claim 6, Claim 6 recites the limitation “wherein the filter positioning device associated with a respective mutually assigned filter is assigned to a filter positioning system and operatively connected to the latter [emphasis added]” on Lines 2-4. It is unclear what “the latter” refers to in this claim, even after evaluation of Applicant’s specification as filed, and thus renders the limitation indefinite. For the purpose of examination, the limitation “operatively connected to the latter” is not being addressed.
Regarding Claim 6, Claim 6 recites the limitation “the respective group” on Line 4. This limitation is unclear as the recitation of “respective” requires a previous recitation of at least two separate groups but Claim 4, from which Claim 6 depends, only positively recites a single “group” on Line 4. For the purpose of examination, “the respective group” is being interpreted as “the group”.
Regarding Claim 6, the phrase "in particular" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention (see MPEP § 2173.05(d)). For the purpose of examination, the limitation(s) after this phrase are considered optional limitations.
Regarding Claim 7, Claim 7 recites the limitation “a group… is selected” on Line 3. It is unclear whether this group is the same as the “group” previously recited on Line 4 of Claim 4, or a separate, different group. For the purpose of examination, “a group… is selected” is being interpreted as “the group… is selected”.
Regarding Claim 7, Claim 7 recites the limitation “the recording and/or in parallel with the recording of the image information” on Lines 4-5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. For the purpose of examination, “the recording and/or in parallel with the recording of the image information” is being interpreted as “a recording and/or in parallel with a recording of the filtered piece of image information from the first image or the filtered piece of image information from the second image”.
Regarding Claim 7, the phrase "in particular" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention (see MPEP § 2173.05(d)). For the purpose of examination, the limitation(s) after this phrase are considered optional limitations.
Regarding Claim 8, Claim 8 recites the limitation “wherein the respective filter or the respective filters is or are introducible into the respective optical path” on Lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. For the purpose of examination, “wherein the respective filter or the respective filters is or are introducible into the respective optical path” is being interpreted as “wherein the first filter or the second filter is or are introducible into the first optical path or the second optical path, respectively”.
Regarding Claim 9, Claim 9 recites the limitation “wherein the respective filter positioning device or the respective filter positioning system comprises or comprise a drive such that the respective filter or the filters assigned respectively to one another is or are introducible into the first optical path and/or into the second optical path by means of the respective drive [emphasis added]” on Lines 2-6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. For the purpose of examination, “wherein the respective filter positioning device or the respective filter positioning system comprises or comprise a drive such that the respective filter or the filters assigned respectively to one another is or are introducible into the first optical path and/or into the second optical path by means of the respective drive” is being interpreted as “wherein the first filter positioning device, the second filter positioning device or a filter positioning system comprises or comprise a drive such that the first filter and/or the second filter is or are introducible into the first optical path and/or into the second optical path, respectively, by means of the drive [emphasis added]”.
Regarding Claim 9, the phrase "in particular" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention (see MPEP § 2173.05(d)). For the purpose of examination, the limitation(s) after this phrase are considered optional limitations.
Regarding Claim 10, Claim 10 recites the limitation “the third filter, the fourth filter and/or the further filter [emphasis added]” on Lines 3-5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. For the purpose of examination, “the third filter, the fourth filter and/or the further filter” is being interpreted as “a third filter, a fourth filter and/or a further filter [emphasis added]”.
Regarding Claim 11, Claim 11 recites the limitation “wherein the first filter, the second filter, the third filter, the fourth filter, and/or the further filter have a respective filter spectrum such that by means of the different filter spectra of the respective filters [emphasis added]” on Lines 2-5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. For the purpose of examination, “wherein the first filter, the second filter, the third filter, the fourth filter, and/or the further filter have a respective filter spectrum such that by means of the different filter spectra of the respective filters” is being interpreted as “wherein the first filter, the second filter, a third filter, a fourth filter, and/or a further filter have the first filter spectrum, the second filter spectrum, a third filter spectrum, a fourth filter spectrum and/or a further filter spectrum, respectively, such that by means of the different filter spectra of the first, second, third, fourth and/or further filters [emphasis added]”.
Regarding Claim 11, Claim 11 recites the limitation “to determine one piece of additional image information or more pieces of additional image information regarding the physiological parameters together” on Lines 8-10. It is unclear whether the “one piece of additional information” and the “more pieces of additional image information” are the same as the “one piece of additional information” and the “more pieces of additional image information” previously recited on Line 25 & Lines 25-26, respectively, of Claim 1, or separate, different pieces of image information. For the purpose of examination, “to determine one piece of additional image information or more pieces of additional image information regarding the physiological parameters together” is being interpreted as “to determine the one piece of additional image information or the more pieces of additional image information regarding the physiological parameters together”.
Regarding Claim 13, the phrase "in particular" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention (see MPEP § 2173.05(d)). For the purpose of examination, the limitation(s) after this phrase are considered optional limitations.
Regarding Claim 14, Claim 14 recites the limitation “the first image sensor records a first image of the observation region by means of the first optical path and the second image sensor records a second image of the observation region by means of the second optical path” on Lines 3-6. It is unclear whether this “first image” and this “second image” are the same as the “first image” and “the second image” previously recited on Lines 7 & 9, respectively, of Claim 1, or separate, different images. For the purpose of examination, “the first image sensor records a first image of the observation region by means of the first optical path and the second image sensor records a second image of the observation region by means of the second optical path” is being interpreted as “the first image sensor records the first image of the observation region by means of the first optical path and the second image sensor records the second image of the observation region by means of the second optical path”.
Regarding Claim 15, the phrase "in particular" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention (see MPEP § 2173.05(d)). For the purpose of examination, the limitation(s) after this phrase are considered optional limitations.
Regarding Claim 17, the phrase "in particular" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention (see MPEP § 2173.05(d)). For the purpose of examination, the limitation(s) after this phrase are considered optional limitations.
Regarding Claim 18, Claim 18 recites the limitation “the piece of first image information, the piece of second image information, the piece of dual image information, the stereoscopically formed piece of spatial image information, and/or the piece of additional image information [emphasis added]” on Lines 3-6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. For the purpose of examination, “the piece of first image information, the piece of second image information, the piece of dual image information, the stereoscopically formed piece of spatial image information, and/or the piece of additional image information” is being interpreted as “the filtered piece of image information from the first image, the filtered piece of image information from the second image, a piece of dual image information, a stereoscopically formed piece of spatial image information, and/or the piece of additional image information [emphasis added]”.
Regarding Claims 2, 12 & 16, Claims 2, 12 & 16 are rejected as being dependent upon claims previously rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b).
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.
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ntziachristos et al. (hereinafter "Ntziachristos") (US 2013/0041267).
Regarding Claim 1, Ntziachristos discloses a medical imaging apparatus (Fig. 1, 100; [0049]), in particular an endoscope or an exoscope, having
a light source (Fig. 1, 11.1; [0050]) with a light spectrum ([0051]),
an optical unit (Fig. 1, 20; [0049]) with a first optical path (a first imaging channel illustrated by a straight arrow —hereinafter “straight image channel”; see Fig. 1) and a first image sensor (Fig. 1, a straight-image-channel 22; [0057]) with a first sensor filter (Fig. 2, a straight-image-channel 27; [0057]), and
a second optical path (a second image channel illustrated by a straight portion and a left facing arrow —hereinafter “bent image channel”; see Fig. 1) with a second image sensor (Fig. 1, a bent-image-channel 22; [0057]) with a second sensor filter (Fig. 2, a bent-image-channel 27; [0057]),
wherein the respective optical path extends between an observation region (Fig. 1, 1; [0049]) and the respective image sensor ([0055]), such that the first image sensor records a first image of the observation region by means of the first optical path ([0057]) and the second image sensor records a second image of the observation region by means of the second optical path ([0057]),
wherein the light source is configured to illuminate the observation region with the light spectrum ([0050]); and
the first optical path is assigned a first filter with a first filter spectrum (Fig. 1, a first bandpass filter of a straight-image-channel filter wheel 35; [0053]); and/or
the second optical path is assigned a second filter with a second filter spectrum (Fig. 1, a first bandpass filter of a bent-image-channel filter wheel 35; [0053]) such that physiological parameters of the observation region are determinable depending on the light spectrum by means of a respective filtered piece of image information from the first image and/or the second image ([0064]),
wherein the first filter is introducible into the first optical path by means of a first filter positioning device (Fig. 1, a straight-image-channel filter wheel 35; [0053]) and/or
the second filter is introducible into the second optical path by means of a second filter positioning device (Fig. 1, a bent-image-channel filter wheel 35; [0053]) such that a filtered piece of image information from the first image and/or a filtered piece of image information from the second image, depending on the respective filter introduced into the respective optical path, render/renders evaluable different spectral regions of the respective image in order to obtain one piece of additional image information or more pieces of additional image information regarding the physiological parameters in the observation region ([0064]).
Regarding Claim 2, Ntziachristos discloses the medical imaging apparatus as claimed in Claim 1. Ntziachristos further discloses wherein the first optical path and/or the second optical path is or are assigned a third filter (Fig. 1, a first bandpass filter of filter wheel 32; [0053]), a fourth filter (Fig. 1, a second bandpass filter of the filter wheel 32; [0053]), and/or a further filter, wherein the third filter is introducible by means of a third filter positioning device (Fig. 1, filter wheel 32; [0053]), the fourth filter is introducible by means of a fourth filter positioning device, and/or the further filter is introducible by means of a further filter positioning device into the first optical path and/or into the second optical path ([0053]).
Regarding Claim 3, Ntziachristos discloses the medical imaging apparatus as claimed in Claim 1. Ntziachristos further discloses wherein the first filter, the second filter, the third filter (Fig. 1, a first bandpass filter of filter wheel 32; [0053]), the fourth filter (Fig. 1, a second bandpass filter of the filter wheel 32; [0053]), and/or the further filter have different filter spectra from one another ([0053]).
Regarding Claim 4, Ntziachristos discloses the medical imaging apparatus as claimed in Claim 1. Ntziachristos further discloses wherein the first filter, the second filter, the third filter (Fig. 1, a first bandpass filter of filter wheel 32; [0053]), the fourth filter (Fig. 1, a second bandpass filter of the filter wheel 32; [0053]), and/or the further filter are grouped in a group (Fig. 1, the first bandpass filter of filter wheel 32 and the second bandpass filter of filter wheel 32 are grouped on the filter wheel 32; [0053]), in particular in a group of two filters assigned to one another, such that filters in each case assigned to one another in the group are jointly introducible into the first optical path and into the second optical path ([0053]).
Regarding Claim 5, Ntziachristos discloses the medical imaging apparatus as claimed in Claim 1. Ntziachristos further discloses wherein the first filter, the second filter, the third filter (Fig. 1, a first bandpass filter of filter wheel 32; [0053]), the fourth filter (Fig. 1, a second bandpass filter of the filter wheel 32; [0053]), and/or the further filter are grouped with one another in an operational group (Fig. 1, the first bandpass filter of filter wheel 32 and the second bandpass filter of filter wheel 32 are grouped on the filter wheel 32; [0053]), in particular in a respective operational group made of two filters assigned to one another, such that a first mode of operation, a second mode of operation, a third mode of operation, and/or a further mode of operation is selectable by a user by means of an input ([0053]), wherein a selection can be made from a group of respective filters for different modes of operation, for example a group of the first filter and the second filter for an oxygen saturation mode of operation, a group of the third filter and the fourth filter for a water content mode of operation, and/or a group of two further filters for a hemoglobin content mode of operation.
Regarding Claim 6, Ntziachristos discloses the medical imaging apparatus as claimed in Claim 4. Ntziachristos further discloses wherein the filter positioning device associated with a respective mutually assigned filter is assigned to a filter positioning system ([0053]) and operatively connected to the latter such that the respective group or operational group of in particular two filters assigned to one another is jointly introducible into the first optical path and into the second optical path by means of the filter positioning system ([0053]).
Regarding Claim 7, Ntziachristos discloses the medical imaging apparatus as claimed in Claim 4. Ntziachristos further discloses wherein continuous imaging is implemented in such a way that a group and/or an operational group is selected ([0053]) and there is an evaluation with regards to the physiological parameters together with the recording and/or in parallel with the recording of the image information ([0053]), in particular in real time.
Regarding Claim 8, Ntziachristos discloses the medical imaging apparatus as claimed in Claim 1. Ntziachristos further discloses wherein the respective filter or the respective filters is or are introducible into the respective optical path by means of being pushed in, by means of being pivoted in, and/or by means of being screwed in (Fig. 1, filter wheels rotate to introduce various filters into a various image channels; [0053]).
Regarding Claim 9, Ntziachristos discloses the medical imaging apparatus as claimed in Claim 1. Ntziachristos further discloses wherein the respective filter positioning device or the respective filter positioning system comprises or comprise a drive such that the respective filter or the filters assigned respectively to one another is or are introducible into the first optical path and/or into the second optical path by means of the respective drive (Fig. 1, filter wheels rotate to introduce various filters into a various image channels; [0053]), wherein the drive in particular comprises a stepper motor, a gearmotor, a lifting magnet, a pivoting magnet, and/or a manually operable drive.
Regarding Claim 10, Ntziachristos discloses the medical imaging apparatus as claimed in Claim 1. Ntziachristos further discloses wherein the first filter, the second filter, the third filter (Fig. 1, a first bandpass filter of filter wheel 32; [0053]), the fourth filter (Fig. 1, a second bandpass filter of the filter wheel 32; [0053]), and/or the further filter is an edge filter or a band filter ([0053]).
Regarding Claim 11, Ntziachristos discloses the medical imaging apparatus as claimed in Claim 1. Ntziachristos further discloses wherein the first filter, the second filter, the third filter (Fig. 1, a first bandpass filter of filter wheel 32; [0053]), the fourth filter (Fig. 1, a second bandpass filter of the filter wheel 32; [0053]), and/or the further filter have a respective filter spectrum such that by means of the different filter spectra of the respective filters by means of two filters assigned respectively to one another in the first optical path and in the second optical path it is possible (Fig. 1, the first bandpass filter of filter wheel 32 and the second bandpass filter of filter wheel 32 are grouped on the filter wheel 32; [0053]), by way of a parallel evaluation of the first image and the second image, to determine a color image of the observation region ([0063]) and to determine one piece of additional image information or more pieces of additional image information regarding the physiological parameters together ([0064]).
Regarding Claim 12, Ntziachristos discloses the medical imaging apparatus as claimed in Claim 1. Ntziachristos further discloses wherein the light source is a white-light source, and so the light source illuminates the observation region with white light (Fig. 1, 11.1 is white light; [0051]).
Regarding Claim 13, Ntziachristos discloses the medical imaging apparatus as claimed in Claim 1. Ntziachristos further discloses wherein the optical unit comprises a beam splitter (Fig. 1, 33.2; [0053]), wherein the beam splitter is used to split an image of the observation region into the first image and the second image such that the first image is suppliable to the first image sensor via the first optical path and the second image is suppliable to the second image sensor via the second optical path ([0053]), wherein the beam splitter in particular comprises a prism, a semi-transparent mirror or two semi-transparent mirrors ([0053]), and/or a mirror.
Regarding Claim 14, Ntziachristos discloses the medical imaging apparatus as claimed in Claim 1. Ntziachristos further discloses wherein the first optical path and the second optical path are arranged spatially offset from one another such that the first image sensor records a first image of the observation region by means of the first optical path and the second image sensor records a second image of the observation region by means of the second optical path ([0057]).
Regarding Claim 15, Ntziachristos discloses the medical imaging apparatus as claimed in Claim 14. Ntziachristos further discloses wherein the first image and the second image are assigned to one another in an overlaid image to form a piece of dual image information ([0057]), wherein in particular the formation of the piece of dual image information in the overlaid image comprises a reconstruction of a correlation between the first image and the second image on the basis of a piece of respective filtered image information, in particular a reconstruction of a disparity, wherein the reconstruction is implemented in particular on the basis of pieces of image information with wavelength spectra transmitted by the respective filter, in particular as a result of illuminating the observation region with white light.
Regarding Claim 16, Ntziachristos discloses the medical imaging apparatus as claimed in Claim 15. Ntziachristos further discloses wherein the formation of the piece of dual image information comprises a stereoscopic formation of a piece of spatial image information for the observation region ([0057]).
Regarding Claim 17, Ntziachristos discloses the medical imaging apparatus as claimed in Claim 1. Ntziachristos further discloses wherein an evaluation unit (Fig. 1, 40; [0055]) which is configured to evaluate the first image and/or the second image in relation to a hemoglobin index ([0064]), a water index, an oxygen index or an oxygen-infrared index, with the result that a hemoglobin content ([0064]), a water content, an oxygen concentration, and/or a presence of an adjuvant, in particular a fluorescent substance, is determinable.
Regarding Claim 18, Ntziachristos discloses the medical imaging apparatus as claimed in Claim 1. Ntziachristos further discloses wherein a display unit (Fig. 1, 51; [0060]) which is configured for continuous, parallel, simultaneous, overlaid and/or correlated display of the piece of first image information, the piece of second image information, the piece of dual image information, the stereoscopically formed piece of spatial image information, and/or the piece of additional image information ([0060]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 2022/0021807; US 2021/0215920; US 2021/0059509; US 2020/0400929; US 2018/0153408; US 2011/0299174; US 2010/0110538; US 2009/0075391; U.S. 5,749,830 and U.S. 5,507,287.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHEN FLOYD LONDON whose telephone number is (571)272-4478. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 10:00 am ET - 6:00pm ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, MICHAEL CAREY can be reached at (571)270-7235. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/STEPHEN FLOYD LONDON/Examiner, Art Unit 3795
/MICHAEL J CAREY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3795