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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 1/19/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-13 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 1 recites the limitation of “determine whether or not an evaluation result…” which renders the scope of the claim unclear. It is unclear how the limitation relates to the previous steps. The claim fails to set forth any steps of evaluation.
Claim 11 recites the limitation of “determining whether or not an evaluation result…” which renders the scope of the claim unclear. It is unclear how the limitation relates to the previous steps. The claim fails to set forth any steps of evaluation.
Claim 12 recites the limitation of “determining whether or not an evaluation result…” which renders the scope of the claim unclear. It is unclear how the limitation relates to the previous steps. The claim fails to set forth any steps of evaluation.
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) 1-13 are is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mintz et al. (US 2017/0084027) in view of Zhao et al. (US 2009/0088634).
With respect to claims 1 and 11-12, Mintz et al. discloses an image processing device comprising: at least one processor ([0185]), wherein the processor is configured to; acquire a three-dimensional image of a subject (1410; [0172]); acquire a fluoroscopic image of the subject having a lumen structure into which an endoscope is inserted (1405; [0061]; [0171]); acquire a first real endoscopic image in the lumen structure of the subject captured at a first time point by the endoscope ([0177]; [0179]); derive a provisional virtual viewpoint in the three-dimensional image of the endoscope using the fluoroscopic image and the three-dimensional image (1445; [0179]); derive a virtual viewpoint at the first time point in the three-dimensional image of the endoscope using the provisional virtual viewpoint, the first real endoscopic image, and the three-dimensional image (1450; [0180]); and derive a virtual viewpoint at a second time point after the first time point in the three-dimensional image of the endoscope using the first real endoscopic image and a second real endoscopic image captured by the endoscope at the second time point ([0181-0182]). Mintz et al. does not teach determining an evaluation result representing a reliability degree. However, Zhao et al. teaches in the same field of endeavor determining reliability of images by comparing real images to virtual images ([0057]; [0100]; [0167]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided Mintz et al. with reliability determination as taught by Zhao et al. in order to provide accurate position and orientation information ([0004]; [0100]).
With respect to claim 2, Mintz et al. discloses wherein the processor is configured to: specify a position of the endoscope within the fluoroscopic image (1435; 1436; [00177]); derive a position of the provisional virtual viewpoint using the specified position of the endoscope ([0179]); and derive an orientation of the provisional virtual viewpoint using the position of the provisional viewpoint in the three-dimensional image (1447).
With respect to claim 3, Mintz et al. discloses wherein the processor is configured to adjust the virtual viewpoint at the first time point such that a first virtual endoscopic image In the virtual viewpoint at the first time point derived using the three-dimensional image matches the first real endoscopic image ([0177]; [0179]).
With respect to claim 4, Mintz et al. discloses wherein the processor is configured to: derive a change in viewpoint using the first real endoscopic image and the second real endoscopic image; and derive the virtual viewpoint at the second time point using the change in the viewpoint and the virtual viewpoint at the first time point (tracking; [0083]; [0127]; [0137]; [0161]).
With respect to claims 5-6, Mintz et al. discloses determining evaluation result representing a reliability degree and determination of the state of the endoscope ([0100]; [0112-0115]).
With respect to claim 7, Mintz et al. discloses wherein the processor is configured to sequentially acquire a real endoscopic image at a new time point by the endoscope and sequentially derive a virtual viewpoint of the endoscope at each time (real-time; [0177]).
With respect to claim 8, Mintz et al. discloses wherein the processor is configured to sequentially derive a virtual endoscopic image (1450) at each time point and sequentially display the real endoscopic image which is sequentially acquired and the virtual endoscopic image which is sequentially derived, using the three-dimensional image and the virtual viewpoint of the endoscope at each time point ([0180]).
With respect to claim 9, Mintz et al. discloses wherein the processor is configured to sequentially display the virtual endoscopic image at each time point and the real endoscopic image at each time point ([0177-0180]; Fig. 14B).
With respect to claim 11, Mintz et al. discloses wherein the processor is configured to sequentially display a position of the virtual viewpoint at each time point in the lumen structure in the three-dimensional image (1440; [0178]; Fig. 14B).
With respect to claim 12, Mintz et al. discloses computer-readable storage medium ([0185]).
With respect to claim 13, Mintz et al. discloses a plurality of tomographic images ([0171]; CT scan).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-13 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER LUONG whose telephone number is (571)270-1609. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-6.
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 T 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.
/PETER LUONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3797
Prosecution Insights