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 .
Election
On 6/8/2026, the examiner called the applicant (Phone 509 944 4661) to discuss why the restriction requirement was proper. The examiner left a voice message. The reply call from the applicant was not received.
The traverse to a restriction requirement, the applicant is required to specifically point out the reason(s) on which he or she bases his or her conclusion(s) that a requirement to restrict is in error. As pointed out in the office rejection dated 1/14/2026, the distance measurement using ultrasound and interference of light is distinct because these are two different technology and require different sensor elements. While distance measurement is recited in dependent claims, the distance/depth measurement data are required for both the independent claims of the claim set 4-12 and 21-24 since these claims recite generating 3D image using depth data. Thus, use of interference sensor and ultrasound sensor data are already inherently included in the independent claims respectively. Therefore, claims 4-12 require interference sensor/detector and 21-24 require ultrasound sensor/detector which are different technology and are subject to restriction requirement.
The search scope of these two claims would also be different because one involves ultrasound sensor and the other involves light interference sensor/detector. Accordingly, restriction requirement of these claims is appropriate and made final.
Further, claims 21-26 and claims 4-12 are related as combination and subcombination. Claims 21-26 recite a device which can be an otoscope (see dependent claims 22-23) claims 4-12 recite a scope.
Inventions in this relationship are distinct if it can be shown that (1) the combination as claimed does not require the particulars of the subcombination as claimed for patentability, and (2) that the subcombination has utility by itself or in other combinations (MPEP § 806.05(c)). In the instant case, the combination as claimed does not require the particulars of the subcombination as claimed because scope recited in claim 4 does not require otoscope of the claim group 21-26. The subcombination has separate utility such as imaging of ear canal as recited in claim 22-23. Thus, claims 21-26 are subject to restriction requirement and their restriction is proper.
Similarly, claims 27-31 are sub-combination of group of claim 4-12 that are already elected without traverse by the applicant. See Office rejection dated 1/24/2026.
Accordingly, the election is considered without traverse and made final. See MPEP 818.01 (portions below) -
818.01(a) Reply Must be Complete [R-07.2015]
As indicated in the first sentence of 37 CFR 1.143, the traverse to a requirement for restriction must be complete as required by 37 CFR 1.111(b). Under this rule, the applicant is required to specifically point out the reason(s) on which he or she bases his or her conclusion(s) that a requirement to restrict is in error. A mere broad allegation that the requirement is in error does not comply with the requirement of 37 CFR 1.111. Thus, the required provisional election (see MPEP § 818.01(b)) becomes an election without traverse if accompanied by an incomplete traversal of the requirement for restriction.
Accordingly, claims 21-31 are withdrawn from further consideration.
Where applicant elects a combination/subcombination, and claims thereto are subsequently found allowable, any claim(s) depending from or otherwise requiring all the limitations of the allowable combination/subcombination will be examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. See MPEP § 821.04(a). Applicant is advised that if any claim presented in a divisional application is anticipated by, or includes all the limitations of, a claim that is allowable in the present application, such claim may be subject to provisional statutory and/or nonstatutory double patenting rejections over the claims of the instant application.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 04/14/2026 has been entered. Claims 4-12 are pending. Claims 13-20 are cancelled. Applicant’s amendment to the claims have overcome 112 rejections and objections previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action notified on 01/14/2026.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 4-5, 7-8, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Atiya (US 20230021695) in view of Freeman (US 20140342331).
Regarding claim 4, Atiya discloses a scope (probe 128; FIG. 1A, 1B reproduced below), comprising:
at least one imager (cameras 132) configured to:
generate depth data by detecting a distance between the at least one imager and a surface (obtaining the depth data; para [0028]); and generate two-dimensional (2D) image data (Part of the object is imaged before obtaining the depth data; para [0028], [0047]) by detecting light reflected from the surface (light reflected from the object 136; para [0047]);
a three-dimensional (3D) display (Monitor 160 may display a 3D image; The claim does not provide any detailed features of the 3D display);
a processor (computer processor 158; para [0028]); and
memory (volatile memory, non-volatile memory; para [0074]) storing instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to perform operations comprising:
generating a 3D mesh utilizing the depth data (Depth data are used to generate 3D model; Para [0047]; Reconstruct a three-dimensional image of the surface of object 136 using information from the captured image. Output the image to an output device 160 using scene depth from the imaging. Para [0028]); and
causing the 3D display to output the 3D image of the surface from the 3D image (a computer processor 158 may reconstruct a three-dimensional image of the surface of object 136 and may output the image to an output device 160, e.g., a monitor; Para [0028]).
PNG
media_image1.png
501
838
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Atiya does not expressly disclose colorizing the 3D mesh using the 2D image data; texturizing the 3D mesh using the 2D image data.
Freeman is directed to a medical system (abstract) and teaches colorizing the 3D mesh using the 2D image data (Colors from the original 2D images are applied to complete a 3D mesh; para [0123]); texturizing the 3D mesh using the 2D image data (texture of 2D image are applied for enhanced resolution. Para [0123]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Atiya to include steps of colorizing and texturing the 3D mesh in accordance with the teaching of Freeman so that enhanced resolution and color effect could be achieved in the 3D image (para [0123] of Freeman).
Regarding claim 5, Atiya discloses wherein the at least one imager comprises: a light source (light source 202) configured to emit low-coherence light (FIG. 1B);
a beam splitter (Dichroic mirror 348; FIG. 1B) configured to split the low-coherence light into a first beam and a second beam (FIG. 1B), the beam splitter emitting the first beam toward the surface (FIG. 1B);
a reference mirror (scanning mirror 346) configured to emit a reflection of the second beam by reflecting the second beam (FIG. 1B); and
an sensor array (Imaging camera 132 has a imaging camera sensor 146 that comprises an image sensor comprising an array of pixels, e.g., a CMOS image sensor. Para [0027]) configured to detect a coherence image comprising a reflection of the first beam from the surface and the reflection of the second beam (Depth data is obtained from the imaging; para [0028]).
Regarding claim 7, Atiya discloses at least one lens (lens 206, 342) configured to refract at least one of the low-coherence light, the first beam, the second beam, the reflection of the first beam, or the reflection of the second beam (FIG. 1B).
Regarding claim 8, Atiya discloses the light source being a first light source, wherein: the image sensor array is further configured to generate the 2D image data by detecting an image comprising a reflection of the low-coherence light from the surface (Imaging camera 132 has a imaging camera sensor 146 that comprises an image sensor comprising an array of pixels, e.g., a CMOS image sensor. Para [0027]; Before using the depth information to obtain a 3D image, the image obtained by the camera is a structured 2D image. Para [0028]).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Atiya (US 20230021695) in view of Freeman (US 20140342331) and further in view of Graves (US 20010040743).
Regarding claim 6, Atiya discloses an input device configured to detect an input signal (Hand input; FIG. 2; Para [0024]) from a user.
Atiya does not expressly disclose an actuator configured to alter a curvature of the reference mirror, the reference mirror being deformable, wherein the operations further comprise causing the actuator to alter the curvature of the reference mirror based on the input signal.
Graves is directed to a method of multimodal scanning (abstract) and teaches an actuator configured to alter a curvature of the reference mirror, the reference mirror being deformable, wherein the operations further comprise causing the actuator to alter the curvature of the reference mirror based on the input signal (If the system is used for data transmission by light waves, the detector D will receive and detect corrected light rays when the deformable mirror 14 is properly deformed to correct for aberrations in the light rays R transmitted to the system illustrated in FIG. 1; Para [0013]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Atiya to include deformable mirror in accordance with the teaching of Graves so that correction or compensation of image signal could be included in the imaging (Para [0003] of Graves).
Claim(s) 9, 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Atiya (US 20230021695) in view of Freeman (US 20140342331) and further in view of Brown (US 20170127043).
Regarding claim 9, Atiya discloses a 3D display (monitor 160).
Atiya does not expressly disclose wherein the 3D display comprises: a screen comprising an array of pixels.
Brown is directed to an apparatus for displaying and/or capturing auto-multiscopic 3D images (FIG. 1; abstract) and teaches an array of lenses, a first lens in the array lenses (concave lens array (1501); FIG. 15; para [0102]) overlapping a group of pixels in the array of pixels (FIGS. 14, 15), the first lens directing light emitted by a first pixel in the group of pixels in a first direction and directing light emitted by a second pixel in the group of pixels in a second direction (Note the light emitted by sub-pixels; FIG. 15).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify display of Atiya to have a display including lenses in accordance with the teaching of Brown so that image collection could be enhanced by way of having lenses as array of pixels in the display.
Regarding claim 10, Atiya as modified teaches wherein a spatial resolution of the depth data is greater at a periphery of a field-of-view of the depth data than a spatial resolution of the depth data at a center of the field-of-view (Brown: FIG. 15; Lens display; Since lenses are provided as pixels to collect signal, lens in periphery would have more signals to accumulate from more spatial data for depth than in the center for 3D image data.), and wherein a spatial resolution of the 2D image data is greater at a center of a field-of-view of the 2D image data than a spatial resolution of the 2D image data at a periphery of the field-of-view (Brown: For 2D image data, the projection of 2D signal is higher at the center than at the periphery.).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Atiya (US 20230021695) in view of Freeman (US 20140342331) and further in view of Kato (US 20150235373) and Ushijima (US 20160095504).
Regarding claim 11, Atiya does not expressly disclose a sensor configured to detect a distance between the scope and a user, wherein the operations further comprise: causing the 3D display to visually output a recommendation to increase or decrease the distance.
Kato is directed to three-dimensional display device (abstract) and teaches a sensor configured to detect a distance between the scope and a user (Position of the plane of display, depth of the image is determined; FIG. 6A; Para [0105]; outputs information indicating a decided candidate to the depth suitability determination unit 270 and 3D image compositing unit 124. Para [0178]).
Ushijima is directed to stereoscopic endoscope system (abstract) and teaches causing the 3D display to visually output a recommendation to increase or decrease the distance (a message or the like may be displayed indicating that the direction and height of the 3D monitor 5 are to be manually adjusted. Para [0149]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Atiya to include a sensor to detect a distance between the display and a user so that a user could be informed of a position of a 3D display for enhanced visibility.
Further, it would have been obvious to further modify Atiya to include a recommendation to increase or decrease the distance of the display from the user so that a user could view the 3D image more conveniently by having a recommendation from the device to adjust the position of the 3D display.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Atiya (US 20230021695) in view of Freeman (US 20140342331) and further in view of Kato (US 20150235373).
Regarding claim 12, Atiya does not expressly disclose a sensor configured to detect a distance between the scope and a user, wherein the operations further comprise: adjusting a viewing distance of the 3D image being visually presented by the 3D display based on the distance between the scope and the user.
Kato is directed to three-dimensional display device (abstract) and a sensor configured to detect a distance between the scope and a user (Position of the plane of display, depth of the image is determined; FIG. 6A; Para [0104], [0105]; Note in FIG. 6A, the depth of the image in 3D is adjusted based on users eye positions.), wherein the operations further comprise: adjusting a viewing distance of the 3D image being visually presented by the 3D display based on the distance between the scope and the user (Adjusts the display region of the additional image according to a suitability; FIG. 6A; para [0105], [0106], [0178]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Atiya so that distance of the display region of the 3D display could be adjusted as needed for a user convenience.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments submitted on 04/14/2026 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection dated 01/14/2026 have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new rejection has been made in view of amendment.
See rejection set forth above.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHANKAR R GHIMIRE whose telephone number is (571)272-0515. The examiner can normally be reached 8 AM - 5 PM.
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.
/SHANKAR RAJ GHIMIRE/Examiner, Art Unit 3795
/ANHTUAN T NGUYEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3795 06/12/26
Prosecution Insights