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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1 and 3-46 are pending, claims 10-15, 18-39, and 42-44 have been withdrawn from consideration, claim 2 has been cancelled, claims 45-46 have been added, and claims 1, 3-9, 16-17, 40-41, and 45-46 are currently under consideration for patentability under 37 CFR 1.104. Previous 35 USC 112 Rejections have been withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendments.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-9, 16-17, and 40-41 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.
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) 1, 3-9, 16-17, and 45-46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown (US 2016/0000302), in view of Shameli (US 2020/0193600).
Regarding claim 1, Brown discloses an information processing apparatus (80, figure 2) comprising: a first processor (204, figure 2), wherein the first processor is configured to acquire an image (imaging… [0045]) captured using an endoscope (50, figure 1), display the acquired image (402, figure 4) in a first region (see right side of display 400, figure 4) on a screen of a first display unit (206, figure 2) in real time (video fed 403 [0058]), display a plurality of sites (see each region 410, 412, 414, and 416, figure 4) of a hollow organ (404, figure 4) in a second region on the screen (see left side of display 400, figure 4) of the first display unit, and accept selection of one site from among the plurality of sites (accept the registration…[0062], figure 6). Brown is silent regarding detect a specific region in a hollow organ as an observation target from the acquired image, display a plurality of sites in a case where the specific region is detected.
Shameli teaches a comparative interface (figures 3-5), where an intraoperative image is compared to pre-operative endoscopic images of various anatomical structures ([0032]). An endoscopic image map of pre-operative endoscopic images is created, which includes the set of endoscopic images and associated position or perspective data ([0047]). The system receives live images, where the live images are associated with position or perspective data ([0047]). The comparative endoscopic images are based upon the endoscopic image map and the live endoscopic images, which may include selecting a matching endoscopic image from the endoscopic image map ([0047]). With one or more created comparative endoscopic images, the system may then provide a comparative interface via a display such as the display screen ([0047]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the apparatus of Brown with the comparative interface (see figures 3-5) to match a live endoscopic image with a matching endoscopic image from an endoscopic image map and displaying it ([0047]) as taught by Shameli. Doing so would enable the operator to compare tissue structures before, during, and after the medical procedure ([0032]). The modified apparatus would detect a specific region in a hollow organ as an observation target from the acquired image (matching endoscopic image from the endoscopic image map [0047]; Shameli), display a plurality of sites (404, figure 4; Brown | 205, figure 4; 3-D map [0040]; Shameli | the modified device would use the matching method as taught by Shameli to find the plurality of sites) in a case where the specific region is detected (see 202, figure 4; pre-operative endoscopic image may be selected and displayed based upon data [0041]; selecting a matching endoscopic image…[0047]; Shameli).
Regarding claim 3, Brown and Shameli further disclose the first processor displays the plurality of sites in the second region (see 404, figure 4; Brown | 205, figure 4; 3-D map [0040]; Shameli) in a state where a site to which the detected specific region belongs is selected in advance from among the plurality of sites (navigation setup…selecting…[0056]).
Regarding claim 4, Brown and Shameli further disclose in the case where the specific region is detected (matching endoscopic image…[0047]; Shameli), the first processor displays the plurality of sites (404, figure 4; Brown | 205, figure 4; 3-D map [0040]; Shameli) in the second region in a state where one site is selected in advance from among the plurality of sites (selecting a matching endoscopic image [0047]; Shameli).
Regarding claim 5, Brown and Shameli further disclose the first processor displays the plurality of sites in the second region using a schema diagram (see 404, figure 4; Brown | 205, figure 4; 3-D map [0040]; Shameli).
Regarding claim 6, Brown further discloses the first processor displays the site being selected such that the site being selected is distinguishable from the other sites (check mark, figure 4 | [0060]; Brown), in the schema diagram displayed in the second region (see 404, figure 4).
Regarding claim 7, Brown further discloses the second region is set in a vicinity (interpreted to mean close or nearby) of a position where a treatment tool (92, figure 4; Brown) appears within the image displayed in the first region (see location of 404 is nearby 92, figure 4).
Regarding claim 8, Brown further discloses the first processor displays the second region in an emphasized manner during a first time in a case where selection of the site is accepted (check mark, figure 4; Brown | [0060] | highlighted portion…pathway [0016]).
Regarding claim 9, Brown further discloses the first processor continuously accepts selection of the site after display of the plurality of sites is started (acceptable…[0062]).
Regarding claim 16, Brown further discloses the first processor is configured to detect a treatment tool from the acquired image (enables tracking...biopsy tool 102 [0051] | insert a tool [0081]), choose a plurality of treatment names (broadly interpreted as a designation of the different tools, such as displaying/marking it) corresponding to the detected treatment tool (tracking of location of biopsy tool 02 [0048] | biopsy device…or other similar tools to sample, mark and/or treat [0081]), display the plurality of chosen treatment names in a third region on the screen of the first display unit (location of a previous treatment site….[0082] | 3D map dynamic view 482…indicate the location [0082], figure 10 | 482 is on the top left part of the display, figure 10), accept selection of one treatment name from among the plurality of treatment names from start of the display until a third time elapses (mark may be recorded…at a later time [0080] | interpreted there to be a time limit to modify the treatment name), and stop acceptance of selection of the site while selection of the treatment name is accepted (mark may be permanently recorded…[0080]).
Regarding claim 17, Brown further discloses the first processor records information on the selected treatment name in association with information on the selected site (biopsy tool…tracking [0048]).
Regarding claim 45, Brown further discloses the hollow organ is a large intestine (gastrointestinal networks [0041]; Brown), and the specific region is an ileocecum (gastrointestinal networks [0041] | gastrointestinal networks would include an ileocecum; Brown).
Regarding claim 46, Shameli further teaches the processor stops acceptance of the selection of the site during a second time after the detection target is detected (selecting a matching endoscopic image…may then provide a comparative interface [0047]; Shameli | interpreted selection stopped after the selected matching endoscopic image).
Claim(s) 40-41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wolf (US 2020/0273581), in view of Brown (US 2016/0000302) and Shameli (US 2020/0193600).
Regarding claim 40, Wolf discloses a report creation support device that supports creation of a report (post-operative report [0020]), comprising: a second processor (processor [0415]), wherein the second processor is configured to display a report creation screen (display information…[0448]) with at least an input field for a site (fields…[0448])), on a second display unit (display information [0448]), automatically input the acquired information on the site to the input field for the site (automatically generated data…[0450])), and accept correction of the automatically input information of the input field for the site (correct the error [0467])). Wolf is silent regarding acquire information on the site selected in the information processing apparatus according to claim 1.
Brown teaches a workstation (80, figure 2) that navigates a target through a patient’s bronchial tree (abstract). The workstation includes a user interface that guides a user through a navigation plan and is configured to present a central navigation view for assisting the user in navigating the bronchoscope through central airways toward the target (abstract).
Shameli teaches a comparative interface (figures 3-5), where an intraoperative image is compared to pre-operative endoscopic images of various anatomical structures ([0032]). An endoscopic image map of pre-operative endoscopic images is created, which includes the set of endoscopic images and associated position or perspective data ([0047]). The system receives live images, where the live images are associated with position or perspective data ([0047]). The comparative endoscopic images are based upon the endoscopic image map and the live endoscopic images, which may include selecting a matching endoscopic image from the endoscopic image map ([0047]). With one or more created comparative endoscopic images, the system may then provide a comparative interface via a display such as the display screen ([0047]).
It would have been obvious to modify the report creation support device of Wolf to be used with the information processing apparatus as taught by Brown (abstract). Doing so would provide the creation of a post operative report for the navigation procedure in Brown (fig. 3). It also would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the apparatus of Brown with the comparative interface (see figures 3-5) to match a live endoscopic image with a matching endoscopic image from an endoscopic image map and displaying it ([0047]) as taught by Shameli. Doing so would enable the operator to compare tissue structures before, during, and after the medical procedure ([0032]). The modified device would acquire information on the site selected in the information processing apparatus according to claim 1 (see claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 41, Wolf further discloses the second processor displays the input field for the site such that the input field for the site is distinguishable from other input fields on the report creation screen (post-operative report…in various organizations and/or formats [0418]).
Conclusion
Applicants’ amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 PAMELA F WU whose telephone number is (571)272-9851. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8-4 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, 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.
PAMELA F. WU
Examiner
Art Unit 3795
September 4, 2026
/RYAN N HENDERSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3795
Prosecution Insights