DETAILED ACTION
[1] Remarks
I. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
II. This Office Action is in response to the Reply to Election of Species filed on 12/26/2025.
III. Claims 1-16 and 18-19 are pending and have been examined, where claims 1-2, 4, 8-15, and 18-19 is/are rejected, claim 3, 5-7 and 16 is/are objected. Explanations will be provided below. Claim 17 is withdrawn.
IV. Inventor and/or assignee search were performed and determined no double patenting rejection(s) is/are necessary.
V. Patent eligibility (updated in 2019) shown by the following: Claims 1-16 and 18-19 pass patent eligibility test because there is/are no limitation or a combination of limitations amounting to an abstract idea. Also, the following limitation or the combinations of the limitations: “on a display device, at least one image selected according to the endoscope-related information among a plurality of images in which an observation target observed through the endoscope is divided into a plurality of regions and which are represented in different aspects” effects a transformation or a reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing / adds a specific limitation(s) other than what is well-understood, routine and conventional in the field, or adding unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful application and providing improvements to the technical field of endoscopic image analysis, which recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and amounting significant more.
VI. There are no PCT associated with the current application.
[2] 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.
Use of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is invoked is rebutted when the function is recited with sufficient structure, material, or acts within the claim itself to entirely perform the recited function. Absence of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is not invoked is rebutted when the claim element recites function but fails to recite sufficiently definite structure, material or acts to perform that function.
Claim elements in this application that use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Similarly, claim elements that do not use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed not to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim(s) 1-16 are not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA U.S.C. 112 6th paragraph because of the following reason(s): limitations are modified by sufficient structure or material for performing the claimed function.
Claim(s) 18-19 does not require 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA U.S.C. 112 6th paragraph interpretation because they are method claims and / or they are CRM claims.
Upon examination of the specification and claims, the examiner has determined, under the best understanding of the scope of the claim(s), rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(a)/(b) is not necessitated because of the following reasons: sufficient support are provided in the written description / drawings of the invention.
[3] Grounds of Rejection
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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) person shall be entitled to a patent unless—
(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; or
(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
or
(b) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of application for patent in the United States.
Claims 1-2, 4, 8-15, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Refai (US 20200281454).
Regarding claim 1, Refai discloses a medical support device comprising:
a processor, wherein the processor acquires endoscope-related information that is related to an endoscope (see figure 1 and figure 2A illustrations below) and
PNG
media_image1.png
254
787
media_image1.png
Greyscale
;
displays, on a display device, at least one image selected according to the endoscope-related information among a plurality of images in which an observation target observed through the endoscope is divided into a plurality of regions and which are represented in different aspects (see paragraph 55, augment existing displays with data, symbols, icons, and/or other indicators to direct an operating physician in treating polyps and/or adenomas and/or in driving an endoscope through the colon, where the plurality of images is captured by the endoscope, figure 33, also see figure 23, the region is divided into plurality of regions):
PNG
media_image2.png
166
545
media_image2.png
Greyscale
.
Regarding claim 2, Refai discloses the medical support device according to claim 1, wherein the plurality of images have different amounts of visual information (see figure 33 illustration above, where each frames have different amount of visual information).
Regarding claim 4, Refai discloses the medical support device according to claim 1 wherein the plurality of images are classified into a simple image in a simple format and a detailed image in a format that is more detailed than the simple image (see figure 22A and figure 24A, illustration below):
PNG
media_image3.png
220
723
media_image3.png
Greyscale
.
Regarding claim 8, Refai discloses the medical support device according to claim 1, wherein the endoscope-related information includes information that is capable of specifying content of an operation corresponding to the endoscope (see paragraph 55, providing data for semi-autonomous or autonomous control and/or operation of the endoscope during a colonoscopy procedure, where this data is endoscope-related information).
Regarding claim 9, Refai discloses the medical support device according to claim 1, wherein the endoscope-related information includes information that is capable of specifying an operator of the endoscope (see paragraph 120, software within the control system 16 can utilize measurement and imagery data to assist the operator in detecting the existence of a polyp or adenoma within the patient's colon and in measuring the size and dimensions of the polyp).
Regarding claim 10, Refai discloses the medical support device according to claim 1, wherein the endoscope generates an endoscopic image including the observation target, and the endoscope-related information is information generated on the basis of the endoscopic image (see figure 25, 116 shows observation target and includes information generated on the basis of the endoscopic image).
Regarding claim 11, Refai discloses the medical support device according to claim 1, wherein the endoscope generates an endoscopic image including the observation target, the processor classifies the plurality of regions into an observed region which has been observed through the endoscope and an unobserved region which has not been observed through the endoscope on the basis of the endoscopic image (see figure 22A, unobserved region is the dark background region and observed region is the white foreground region), and the observed region and the unobserved region are displayed to be distinguishable from each other in the at least one image (see figure 24A shows gray areas being the region of interest).
Regarding claim 12, Refai discloses the medical support device according to claim 11,
wherein the observation target is a luminal organ (see figure 24A, where figure 22A shows observation targets, where the white regions are read as observation target), and
the plurality of images include a first image in which a position of the endoscope in the luminal organ and the plurality of regions are comparable from each other (see figure 31A frame i showing plurality of luminal organs) and a second image in which the observed region and the unobserved region in the luminal organ are distinguishable from each other (see figure 31B frame i+1 showing plurality of luminal organs and the background which reads on unobserved region, where the luminal organ are distinguishable from each other):
PNG
media_image4.png
277
764
media_image4.png
Greyscale
.
Regarding claim 13, Refai discloses the medical support device according to claim 11,
wherein the observation target is a luminal organ (see figure 24A, where figure 22A shows observation targets, where the white regions are read as observation target), and
PNG
media_image5.png
264
703
media_image5.png
Greyscale
the plurality of images include a third image in which the observed region and the unobserved region in the luminal organ are distinguishable from each other (see figure 31A frame i showing plurality of luminal organs) and at least one fourth image in which the observed region and the unobserved region in the luminal organ are distinguishable from each other in more detail than the third image (see figure 31B frame i+3 showing plurality of luminal organs and the background which reads on unobserved region, where the luminal organ are distinguishable from each other).
Regarding claim 14, Refai discloses the medical support device according to claim 11,
wherein the plurality of images include, as the fourth image, a fourth schematic view showing a schematic aspect of at least one route for observing the luminal organ (see figure 34, illustration below, the 4th image shows aspect of at least one route for observing the luminal organ) and a fifth schematic view showing an aspect in which the luminal organ is schematically developed (see figure 34 illustration below, where figure 23 shown below):
PNG
media_image6.png
287
1008
media_image6.png
Greyscale
.
Regarding claim 15, Refai discloses the medical support device according to claim 13, wherein the third image and the at least one fourth image are selectively displayed on the display device, using the third image as a starting point (see paragraph 4, system displays three separate images on the screen, one per camera, requiring the operator to simultaneously monitor and process three images to detect polyps instead of a single, integrated view, the viewing difficulty, and lack of detection, location, and treatment assistance, does not significantly increase polyp detection rate, where two of the three images displayed are read as third and fourth image).
Regarding claims 18 and 19 see the rationale and rejection for claim 1. In addition, see paragraph 77 which discloses the synchronization subsystem 56 may include, but is not limited to, a microprocessor and a timing signal generation system, where the microprocessor requires storage for storing instructions.
[4] Claim Objections
Claim(s) 3, 5-7 and 16 is/are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
With regards to claim 3, the examiner cannot find any applicable prior art providing teachings for the following limitation(s): the medical support device according to claim 2, wherein the amount of information is classified into a first amount of information and a second amount of information that is less than the first amount of information; the endoscope-related information includes difficulty information that is capable of specifying a difficulty of a technique using the endoscope and/or a difficulty of mental rotation, and the processor switches between the image with the first amount of information and the image with the second amount of information as the image to be displayed on the display device, according to the difficulty information; in combination with the rest of the limitations of claims 1 and 2.
Refai discloses the medical support device according to claim 2, wherein the amount of information is classified into a first amount of information and a second amount of information that is less than the first amount of information (see figure 24A illustration below):
PNG
media_image7.png
180
537
media_image7.png
Greyscale
.
Refai is silent in disclosing the endoscope-related information includes difficulty information that is capable of specifying a difficulty of a technique using the endoscope and/or a difficulty of mental rotation, and the processor switches between the image with the first amount of information and the image with the second amount of information as the image to be displayed on the display device, according to the difficulty information.
Geiger (US 20050107679) discloses computing an airway tree of the segmented airways and an artery tree of the segmented arteries; selecting an artery path that leads to the target; selecting an airway path that matches the artery path; and selecting a jump location where the endoscopic path switches to the peripheral artery, where the method further comprises viewing the endoscopic path (see paragraph 14), but is silent in disclosing endoscope-related information includes difficulty information that is capable of specifying a difficulty of a technique using the endoscope and/or a difficulty of mental rotation, and the processor switches between the image with the first amount of information and the image with the second amount of information as the image to be displayed on the display device, according to the difficulty information.
With regards to claim 5, the examiner cannot find any applicable prior art providing teachings for the following limitation(s): the medical support device according to claim 4, wherein the endoscope-related information includes difficulty information that is capable of specifying a difficulty of a technique using the endoscope and/or a difficulty of mental rotation, and the processor switches between the simple image and the detailed image as the image to be displayed on the display device, according to the difficulty information; in combination with the rest of the limitations of claims 1 and 4.
Geiger (US 20050107679) discloses computing an airway tree of the segmented airways and an artery tree of the segmented arteries; selecting an artery path that leads to the target; selecting an airway path that matches the artery path; and selecting a jump location where the endoscopic path switches to the peripheral artery, where the method further comprises viewing the endoscopic path (see paragraph 14), but is silent in disclosing the medical support device according to claim 4, wherein the endoscope-related information includes difficulty information that is capable of specifying a difficulty of a technique using the endoscope and/or a difficulty of mental rotation, and the processor switches between the simple image and the detailed image as the image to be displayed on the display device, according to the difficulty information.
Regarding claim 6, the examiner cannot find any applicable prior art providing teachings for the following limitation(s): the medical support device according to claim 1, wherein the observation target is a luminal organ, the plurality of images are a plurality of schematic views including a first schematic view, a second schematic view, and a third schematic view, the first schematic view is a view showing a schematic aspect of at least one route for observing the luminal organ, the second schematic view is a perspective view showing a schematic aspect of the luminal organ, and the third schematic view is a view showing an aspect in which the luminal organ is schematically developed; in combination with the rest of the limitations of claims 1 and 2.
Claim(s) 7 is/are objected as well because it is dependent on claim 6 which includes allowable subject matter.
Regarding claim 16, the examiner cannot find any applicable prior art providing teachings for the following limitation(s): the medical support device according to claim 1, wherein the processor outputs unobserved information capable of specifying that an unobserved region, which has not been observed through the endoscope, is present in the plurality of regions along a first route determined from an upstream side to a downstream side in an insertion direction of the endoscope inserted into a body in a case in which a first part on the upstream side and a second part on the downstream side in the insertion direction are sequentially recognized, and outputs the unobserved information along a second route determined from the downstream side to the upstream side in the insertion direction in a case in which a third part on the downstream side and a fourth part on the upstream side in the insertion direction are sequentially recognized; in combination with the rest of the limitations of claim 1.
Bakos (US 20180214152) discloses the medical support device according to claim 1, wherein the processor outputs unobserved information
PNG
media_image8.png
550
640
media_image8.png
Greyscale
.
CONTACT INFORMATION
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEX LIEW (duty station is located in New York City) whose telephone number is (571)272-8623 (FAX 571-273-8623), cell (917)763-1192 or email alexa.liew@uspto.gov. Please note the examiner cannot reply through email unless an internet communication authorization is provided by the applicant. The examiner can be reached anytime.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, MISTRY ONEAL R, can be reached on (313)446-4912. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ALEX KOK S LIEW/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2674 Telephone: 571-272-8623
Date: 2/12/26