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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1–2, and 5–16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without a practical application or significantly more.
Regarding claims 1 and 15, these claims recite the following limitations which are found to be abstract ideas not reciting a practical application or significantly more, with claim 1 being exemplary:
detect a detection target and acquire actual position information of the detection target by performing a first detection process on the endoscope image; perform a landmark setting process of detecting a landmark and acquiring position information of the landmark by performing a second detection process on the endoscope image in a case where the detection target is detected, and associating the position information of the landmark with the actual position information of the detection target (abstract ideas as mental processes as a human mind is capable of detecting target objects as distanced from known landmarks (points of reference) from an image, and associating the location of the landmark with the position of the target object).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application for the following reasons. Claims 1 and 15 all recite the additional element of “acquire an endoscope image,” and “perform a target non-detection display process of displaying the position information of the landmark on a display in a case where the detection target is not detected and the landmark is detected,” which while not necessarily being abstract ideas, are insignificant extra solution activity since they are merely data gathering and data output (see MPEP §2106.05(g)). Moreover, these elements amount to receiving and outputting data in a computer based system and are well understood, routine, conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II.
Claims 1 and 15 further recite additional elements: claim 1 is directed towards an endoscope system comprising one or more processors, and claim 15 is directed towards a method of operation of an endoscope system with one or more processors. While the endoscope system and processors recited in claims 1 and 15 are additional elements, they are not sufficient to recite a practical application of the abstract ideas recited as they amount to mere generic computer elements and thus amount to no more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are no more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. see MPEP §2106.05(f).
Further, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because when considered separately and in combination, the above recited additional elements from claims 1 and 15 do not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the exception. Rather, the additional elements disclosed above perform well-understood, routine, conventional computer functions as recognized by the court decisions listed in MPEP § 2106.05(d).
Therefore, independent claims 1 and 15 are directed towards an abstract idea without a practical application or significantly more.
Regarding claim 12, these claims recite the following limitations which are found to be abstract ideas not reciting a practical application or significantly more:
acquire detection target actual position information of a detection target by performing a first detection process on the endoscope image; acquire position information of a landmark by performing a second detection process on the endoscope image; perform a landmark setting process of setting a relative relationship by associating any of the detection target actual position information or detection target estimated position information obtained from a position information estimation process based on the position information of the landmark, with the position information of the landmark, each time the endoscope image is updated and the detection target actual position information or the detection target estimated position information is acquired (abstract ideas as mental processes as a human mind is capable of detecting target objects as distanced from known landmarks (points of reference) from an image, and associating the location of the landmark with the position of the target object, and the human mind can repeat the setting of a landmark (for example, drawing a mark on a photo as a reference point) each time a new endoscope image is provided to the human).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application for the following reasons. Claim 12 recites the additional element of “display the detection target actual position information or the detection target estimated position information on a display,” which while not necessarily being abstract ideas, are insignificant extra solution activity since they are merely data gathering and data output (see MPEP §2106.05(g)). Moreover, these elements amount to receiving and outputting data in a computer based system and are well understood, routine, conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II.
Claim 12 further recite additional elements: an endoscope system comprising one or more processors. While the endoscope system and processors recited in claim 12 are additional elements, they are not sufficient to recite a practical application of the abstract ideas recited as they amount to mere generic computer elements and thus amount to no more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are no more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. see MPEP §2106.05(f).
Further, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because when considered separately and in combination, the above recited additional elements from claim 12 do not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the exception. Rather, the additional elements disclosed above perform well-understood, routine, conventional computer functions as recognized by the court decisions listed in MPEP § 2106.05(d).
Therefore, independent claim 12 is directed towards an abstract idea without a practical application or significantly more.
Regarding claims 2 and 16, the limitations are merely directed towards further abstract ideas, specifically mathematical calculations of position information per MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(I)), and the further information that “are displayed” is insignificant extra solution activity since they are merely data gathering and data output, and thus not directed towards a practical application (see MPEP §2106.05(g)). Further, the displaying amounts to receiving and outputting data in a computer based system and are well understood, routine, conventional activity, thus also not significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II.
Regarding claim 5, the wherein clause recited only serves to describe the claimed “position information” data further, without further limiting the system itself, and therefore, the limitations of claim 5 merely extend the abstract ideas recited in the independent claims without providing a practical application or significantly more.
Regarding claim 6, the first wherein clause only serves to further describe characteristics of the endoscope image, but does not provide additional operational steps or system components that perform the first and second illumination lighting. Accordingly, the broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 6’s wherein clause is simply to further characterize the endoscope image itself, which is part of the abstract idea recited in the independent claim, and therefore the wherein clause merely extends the abstract ideas recite in claim 1. Regarding the second part of claim 6, reciting “the one or more processors are configured to detect the detection target and the landmark from the second endoscope image” – this is also an abstract idea as a mental process as the human mind is capable of detecting objects in images and landmark/reference points in images. The next section in the second part reciting “and to display the actual position information of the detection target and the position information of the landmark on the first endoscope image,” is insignificant extra solution activity since it is merely data gathering and data output, and thus not directed towards a practical application (see MPEP §2106.05(g)). Further, the displaying amounts to receiving and outputting data in a computer based system and are well understood, routine, conventional activity, thus also not significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II.
Regarding claims 7 and 8, the wherein clause recited only serves to describe the respectively claimed “landmark” and “detection target” data further, without further limiting the system itself, and therefore, the limitations of claims 7 and 8 merely extend the abstract ideas recited in the independent claims without providing a practical application or significantly more.
Regarding claim 9, these claims recite the following limitations which are found to be abstract ideas not reciting a practical application or significantly more:
detect a new landmark at a position different from a position of the landmark that has already been detected in a case where the endoscope image of a new frame is acquired in a state where a position information estimation process based on the position information of the landmark is continued; perform a new landmark setting process of associating estimated position information of the detection target with the new landmark; after the new landmark setting process, in a case where the endoscope image of a new frame is acquired and the landmark necessary for the position information estimation process is not recognized, perform the position information estimation process using the new landmark setting process (abstract ideas as mental processes as a human mind is capable of detecting new landmarks (points of reference) from an image, and associating the location of the landmark with the position of the target object, and the human mind can repeat the setting of a landmark (for example, drawing a mark on a photo as a reference point) “in a case” where another landmark is not recognized, and estimating a position from the new landmark), calculate the estimated position information of the detection target (mathematical calculation per MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(I)).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application for the following reasons. Claim 9 recites the additional element of “display the estimated position information of the detection target on the display,” which while not necessarily being abstract ideas, are insignificant extra solution activity since they are merely data gathering and data output (see MPEP §2106.05(g)). Moreover, these elements amount to receiving and outputting data in a computer based system and are well understood, routine, conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II, and thus are also not significantly more.
Finally, it is noted that as per MPEP 2106.04(d)(1), a practical application and thus subject matter eligibility can be found when the following two requirements are met per a two-step analysis: In short, first the specification should be evaluated to determine if the disclosure provides sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. The specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, but it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. Conversely, if the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but in a conclusory manner (i.e., a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art), the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology. Second, if the specification sets forth an improvement in technology, the claim must be evaluated to ensure that the claim itself reflects the disclosed improvement. That is, the claim includes the components or steps of the invention that provide the improvement described in the specification.
Regarding claim 10, the wherein clause recited only serves to describe the respectively claimed “landmark” data further, without further limiting the system itself, and therefore, the limitations merely extend the abstract ideas recited in the independent claims without providing a practical application or significantly more. The recited “display the estimated position information of the detection target on the display,” is insignificant extra solution activity since they are merely data gathering and data output, and thus not directed towards a practical application (see MPEP §2106.05(g)). Further, the displaying amounts to receiving and outputting data in a computer based system and are well understood, routine, conventional activity, thus also not significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II.
Regarding claim 11, The recited “perform a target detection display process of displaying the actual position information of the detection target and the position information of the landmark on the display in a case where the detection target is detected,” is insignificant extra solution activity since they are merely data gathering and data output, and thus not directed towards a practical application (see MPEP §2106.05(g)). Further, the displaying amounts to receiving and outputting data in a computer based system and are well understood, routine, conventional activity, thus also not significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II.
Regarding claim 13, these claims recite the following limitations which are found to be abstract ideas not reciting a practical application or significantly more:
wherein, in a case where a new landmark is detected by acquiring the endoscope image of a new frame in a state where the position information estimation process is continued, a new landmark setting process of setting a new relative relationship by associating the detection target estimated position information with the new landmark is performed as the landmark setting process, after the new landmark setting process, in a case where the landmark necessary for the position information estimation process is not recognized, a position information estimation process based on the new relative relationship is performed (abstract ideas as mental processes as a human mind is capable of detecting new landmarks (points of reference) from an image, and associating the location of the landmark with the position of the target object, and the human mind can repeat the setting of a landmark (for example, drawing a mark on a photo as a reference point) “in a case” where another landmark is not recognized, and estimating a position from the new landmark), and a new detection target estimated position information is calculated (mathematical calculation per MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(I)).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application for the following reasons. Claim 13 recites the additional element of “the new detection target estimated position information is displayed on the display,” which while not necessarily being abstract ideas, are insignificant extra solution activity since they are merely data gathering and data output (see MPEP §2106.05(g)). Moreover, these elements amount to receiving and outputting data in a computer based system and are well understood, routine, conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II, and thus are also not significantly more.
Regarding claim 14, the wherein clause recited only serves to describe the respectively claimed “new landmark” data further, without further limiting the system itself, and therefore, the limitations merely extend the abstract ideas recited in the independent claims without providing a practical application or significantly more
Finally, it is noted that as per MPEP 2106.04(d)(1), a practical application and thus subject matter eligibility can be found when the following two requirements are met per a two-step analysis: In short, first the specification should be evaluated to determine if the disclosure provides sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. The specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, but it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. Conversely, if the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but in a conclusory manner (i.e., a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art), the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology. Second, if the specification sets forth an improvement in technology, the claim must be evaluated to ensure that the claim itself reflects the disclosed improvement. That is, the claim includes the components or steps of the invention that provide the improvement described in the specification.
While paragraph 5 of the originally filed Specification states the improvement to be an endoscope system where a position of a detection target can be specified even in a case where the visibility of the detection target is reduced, such a statement is conclusory. Other sections of the Specification such as paragraphs 36–38 set forth real-time endoscope images displayed on a sub screen to assist in specifying a position of a detection target in a case where the visibility of the detection target is reduced. Accordingly, at least these paragraphs disclose components and steps to provide the disclosed improvement, and these components and steps appear to be recited at least in claims 3 and 4, thus, dependent claims 3 and 4 are found to recite a practical application, and thus be subject matter eligible.
Double Patenting
Statutory - 101
A rejection based on double patenting of the “same invention” type finds its support in the language of 35 U.S.C. 101 which states that “whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process... may obtain a patent therefor...” (Emphasis added). Thus, the term “same invention,” in this context, means an invention drawn to identical subject matter. See Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U.S. 186 (1894); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Ockert, 245 F.2d 467, 114 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1957).
A statutory type (35 U.S.C. 101) double patenting rejection can be overcome by canceling or amending the claims that are directed to the same invention so they are no longer coextensive in scope. The filing of a terminal disclaimer cannot overcome a double patenting rejection based upon 35 U.S.C. 101.
The USPTO may not institute a derivation proceeding in the absence of a timely filed petition. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office normally will not institute a derivation proceeding between applications or a patent and an application having common ownership (see 37 CFR 42.411). The applicant should amend or cancel claims such that the reference and the instant application no longer contain claims directed to the same invention.
Claims 12–14 are provisionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claims 11–13 respectively of copending Application No. 18/463,897 (reference application). This is a provisional statutory double patenting rejection since the claims directed to the same invention have not in fact been patented.
Nonstatutory
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 8 and 15 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 10 and 14 of copending Application No. 18/463,897 (herein ‘897’) in view of Mori, US Patent Application Publication No. US 2021/0056695 A1 (herein “Mori”).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Regarding claim 1, the correspondence between the limitations of claim 1 of the present application, and claim 1 of ‘897 is as given below, with claim interpretation rationale provided additionally in parenthesis (), and deficiencies of claim 1 of ‘897 noted in square brackets [] in the listed limitations for claim 1 of the present application:
Limitation of claim 1 of the present application
Limitation of claim 1 of ‘897
An endoscope system comprising: one or more processors configured to:
An endoscope system comprising: one or more processors configured to:
acquire an endoscope image;
acquire an endoscope image;
detect a detection target and acquire actual position information of the detection target by performing a first detection process on the endoscope image;
detect a detection target and acquire actual position information of the detection target by performing a detection target detection process on the endoscope image;
[perform a landmark setting process of detecting a landmark and acquiring position information of the landmark by] performing a second detection process on the endoscope image in a case where the detection target is detected [and associating the position information of the landmark with the actual position information of the detection target];
display in an actual position display mode, in a case where the detection target is detected
perform a target non-detection display process of displaying [the position information of the landmark] on a display in a case where the detection target is not detected [and the landmark is detected].
an estimated position display control process of displaying the estimated position information of the detection target in a portion where the detection target is estimated to be located on the display in an estimated position display mode different from the actual position display mode, in a case where the detection target is not detected
Claim 1 of ‘897 does not explicitly recite “perform a landmark setting process of detecting a landmark and acquiring position information of the landmark by,” “and associating the position information of the landmark with the actual position information of the detection target” or “the position information of the landmark” or “and the landmark is detected.”
However, Mori teaches “perform a landmark setting process of detecting a landmark and acquiring position information of the landmark by,” (Mori ¶56, landmark estimation unit determines boundary (position information) of the insertion portion (landmark) based on analysis of the endoscope image) “and associating the position information of the landmark with the actual position information of the detection target” (Mori ¶57, boundary line is determined between the insertion point (landmark) and the object (detection target)) or “the position information of the landmark” or “and the landmark is detected.” (Mori ¶59, position of the landmark is estimated (detected) with high precision).
Therefore, taking the limitations of claim 1 of ‘897 and the teachings of Mori cited above together as a whole, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (herein “PHOSITA”) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified claim 1 of ‘897 with the landmark detection of Mori at least because doing so would provide position estimation with high precision even when a landmark cannot be directly specified as a measurement point. See Mori ¶ 59.
Regarding claim 8, the limitations of claim 8 of the present application correspond with the limitations of claim 10 of ‘897, in that claim 10 of ‘897 recites “wherein the detection target is at least any of a bleeding portion, a lesion part, …, and claim 8 recites in relevant part “wherein the detection target is at least one of a blood vessel, a bleeding portion, a lesion part, or ….”
Regarding claim 15, the correspondence between the limitations of claim 15 of the present application, and claim 14 of ‘897 is as given below, with claim interpretation rationale provided additionally in parenthesis (), and deficiencies of claim 14 of ‘897 noted in square brackets [] in the listed limitations for claim 15 of the present application:
Limitation of claim 15 of the present application
Limitation of claim 14 of ‘897
A method of operating an endoscope system, the method comprising: following steps, executed by one or more processors, of:
A method of operating an endoscope system, the method comprising: following steps, executed by one or more processors, of:
acquiring an endoscope image;
acquiring an endoscope image;
detecting a detection target and acquiring actual position information of the detection target by performing a first detection process on the endoscope image;
detecting a detection target and acquiring actual position information of the detection target by performing a detection target detection process on the endoscope image;
[detecting a landmark and acquiring position information of the landmark by] performing a second detection process on the endoscope image in a case where the detection target is detected [and performing a landmark setting process of associating the position information of the landmark with the actual position information of the detection target];
performing any of following: an actual position display control process of displaying the actual position information of the detection target on a display in an actual position display mode in a case where the detection target is detected
performing a target non-detection display process of displaying [the position information of the landmark] on a display in a case where the detection target is not detected [and the landmark is detected].
calculating estimated position information of the detection target by a position information estimation process based on the endoscope image in a case where the detection target is not detected; displaying the estimated position information of the detection target in a portion where the detection target is estimated to be located on the display in an estimated position display mode different from the actual position display mode in a case where the detection target is not detected.
Claim 14 of ‘897 does not explicitly recite “detecting a landmark and acquiring position information of the landmark by,” “and performing a landmark setting process of associating the position information of the landmark with the actual position information of the detection target” or “the position information of the landmark” or “and the landmark is detected.”
However, Mori teaches “detecting a landmark and acquiring position information of the landmark by,” (Mori ¶56, landmark estimation unit determines boundary (position information) of the insertion portion (landmark) based on analysis of the endoscope image) “and perform a landmark setting process of associating the position information of the landmark with the actual position information of the detection target” (Mori ¶57, boundary line is determined between the insertion point (landmark) and the object (detection target)) or “the position information of the landmark” or “and the landmark is detected.” (Mori ¶59, position of the landmark is estimated (detected) with high precision).
Therefore, taking the limitations of claim 14 of ‘897 and the teachings of Mori cited above together as a whole, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (herein “PHOSITA”) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified claim 14 of ‘897 with the landmark detection of Mori at least because doing so would provide position estimation with high precision even when a landmark cannot be directly specified as a measurement point. See Mori ¶ 59.
Claims 1–2, 6, 12 and 15–16 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 11 and 18 of co-pending Application No. 18/463,930 (herein ‘930). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of ‘930 recite the same subject matter, even if differently worded, as in the claims of the present application as set forth in detail in the correspondence tables below.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Regarding claims 1–2 of the present application, the correspondence between the limitations of claim 1 of the present application, and claim 1 of ‘930 is as given below, in consideration of the most recent set of claims in ‘930, from a September 5, 2025 amendment, most recent as of the time of drafting this office action (December 22, 2025), and with claim interpretation rationale provided additionally in parenthesis ():
Limitation of claim 1 of the present application
Limitation of claim 1 of ‘930
An endoscope system comprising: one or more processors configured to:
An endoscope system comprising: one or more processors configured to:
acquire an endoscope image;
acquire a first endoscope image
detect a detection target and acquire actual position information of the detection target by performing a first detection process on the endoscope image;
the first endoscope image including a detection target and a landmark having a positional relationship of the landmark to the detection target, acquire position information of a position of the detection target in the first endoscope image; acquire position information of a position of the landmark in the first endoscope image
perform a landmark setting process of detecting a landmark and acquiring position information of the landmark by performing a second detection process on the endoscope image in a case where the detection target is detected and associating the position information of the landmark with the actual position information of the detection target;
store (setting) the position information of the detection target (thus detection target being detected) in association with the position information of the landmark
perform a target non-detection display process of displaying the position information of the landmark on a display in a case where the detection target is not detected and the landmark is detected.
acquire a second endoscope image, the second endoscope image including the landmark and a position at which the detection target is obscured (detection target not detected); determine an estimated position of the detection target in the second endoscope image based on the position of the landmark stored in association with the position of the detection target, display, on a display, the estimated position of the detection target on the position at which the detection target is obscured in the second endoscope image.
Limitation of claim 2 of the present application
Limitation of claim 1 of ‘930
wherein the one or more processors are configured to calculate estimated position information of the detection target by a position information estimation process based on the position information of the landmark, in a case where the detection target is not detected and the landmark is detected, and in the target non-detection display process, the estimated position information of the detection target and the position information of the landmark are displayed on the display
determine an estimated position of the detection target in the second endoscope image based on the position of the landmark stored in association with the position of the detection target; and display, on a display, the estimated position of the detection target on the position at which the detection target is obscured in the second endoscope image.
Regarding claim 6 of the present application, the limitations of claim 6 regarding the first and second endoscope images being based on first and second illumination lights are recited also in corresponding claim 11 of ‘930. Additionally, the second limitation of claim 6 reciting “the one or more processors are configured to detect the detection target and the landmark from the second endoscope image and to display the actual position information of the detection target and the position information of the landmark on the first endoscope image,” corresponds to claim 1 of ‘930 which recites “determine an estimated position of the detection target in the second endoscope image based on the position of the landmark stored in association with the position of the detection target; and display, on a display, the estimated position of the detection target on the position at which the detection target is obscured in the second endoscope image.”
Regarding claims 12 and 15–16 of the present application, the correspondence between the limitations of claim 12 and 15 of the present application, and claims 1 and 18 of ‘930 is as given below, in consideration of the most recent set of claims in ‘930, from a September 5, 2025 amendment, most recent as of the time of drafting this office action (December 22, 2025), and with claim interpretation rationale provided additionally in parenthesis ():
Limitation of claim 12 of the present application
Limitation of claim 1 of ‘930
An endoscope system comprising: one or more processors configured to:
An endoscope system comprising: one or more processors configured to:
acquire an endoscope image;
acquire a first endoscope image
acquire detection target actual position information of a detection target by performing a first detection process on the endoscope image
acquire position information of a position of the detection target in the first endoscope image
acquire position information of a landmark by performing a second detection process on the endoscope image;
acquire position information of a position of the landmark in the first endoscope image
perform a landmark setting process of setting a relative relationship by associating any of the detection target actual position information or detection target estimated position information obtained from a position information estimation process based on the position information of the landmark, with the position information of the landmark, each time the endoscope image is updated and the detection target actual position information or the detection target estimated position information is acquired
store the position information (setting) of the detection target in association with the position information of the landmark; acquire a second endoscope image, the second endoscope image including the landmark and a position at which the detection target is obscured; determine an estimated position of the detection target in the second endoscope image (thus each time – a second time as well) based on the position of the landmark stored in association with the position of the detection target
and display the detection target actual position information or the detection target estimated position information on a display.
display, on a display, the estimated position of the detection target on the position at which the detection target is obscured in the second endoscope image.
Limitation of claim 15 of the present application
Limitation of claim 18 of ‘930
A method of operating an endoscope system, the method comprising: following steps, executed by one or more processors, of:
A method of operating an endoscope system including one or more processors, the method comprising:
acquiring an endoscope image;
acquiring a first endoscope image;
detecting a detection target and acquiring actual position information of the detection target by performing a first detection process on the endoscope image;
the first endoscope image including a detection target and a landmark having a positional relationship of the landmark to the detection target, acquiring position information of a position of the detection target in the first endoscope image;
detecting a landmark and acquiring position information of the landmark by performing a second detection process on the endoscope image in a case where the detection target is detected, and performing a landmark setting process of associating the position information of the landmark with the actual position information of the detection target;
acquiring position information of a position of the landmark in the first endoscope image
storing (setting) the position information of the detection target in association with the position information of the landmark
performing a target non-detection display process of displaying the position information of the landmark on a display in a case where the detection target is not detected and the landmark is detected.
acquiring a second endoscope image, the second endoscope image including the landmark and a position at which the detection target is obscured; determining an estimated position of the detection target in the second endoscope image based on the position of the landmark stored in association with the position of the detection target; and displaying, on a display, the estimated position of the detection target on the position at which the detection target is obscured in the second endoscope image.
Limitation of claim 16 of the present application
Limitation of claim 18 of ‘930
calculating estimated position information of the detection target by a position information estimation process based on the position information of the landmark, in a case where the detection target is not detected and the landmark is detected, wherein, in the target non-detection display process, the estimated position information of the detection target and the position information of the landmark are displayed on the display.
determining an estimated position of the detection target in the second endoscope image based on the position of the landmark stored in association with the position of the detection target; and displaying, on a display, the estimated position of the detection target on the position at which the detection target is obscured in the second endoscope image.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claims 1, 11, 12 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kiyuna et al., US Patent Application Publication No. US 2022/0148182 A1 (herein “Kiyuna”).
Regarding claims 1 and 15, with substantive differences between the claims noted in curly brackets {}, and with claim 1 as exemplary, Kiyuna teaches {A method of operating – claim 15} an endoscope system {the method – claim 15} comprising (Kiyuna ¶ 25, endoscopic system including display device and inspection device):
{following steps, executed by – claim 15} one or more processors {configured to – claim 1 / of – claim 15}: (Kiyuna ¶¶ 29–31, 59, inspection device 1 including a processor executing a program in a memory to execute the process of the inspection device):
acquire an endoscope image (Kiyuna ¶60, acquisition unit acquires a photographed image);
detect a detection target and acquire actual position information of the detection target by performing a first detection process on the endoscope image (Kiyuna ¶¶ 63, 66, in step 106, YES branch for when the attention part has been designated or detected, then attention part information is generated from the position information generation unit, where the position determination unit 44 determines that the position indicated by the photographed image Ic acquired at step S109 corresponds to the attention part (actual position information of the detection target));
{perform a landmark setting process of – claim 1} detecting a landmark and acquiring position information of the landmark by performing a second detection process on the endoscope image in a case where the detection target is detected (Kiyuna ¶¶ 62, 63, when step S106 follows the YES path, this is a case where the attention part (detection target) is detected, and step S105, the landmark position information is determined and acquired in a separate step/second detection process, and the landmark position information is stored in the landmark position information storage unit (setting)), and {performing a landmark setting process of – claim 15} associating the position information of the landmark with the actual position information of the detection target (Kiyuna ¶ 67, the output unit displays information on the landmark immediately before or immediately after the attention part when it corresponds to the attention part); and
perform a target non-detection display process of displaying the position information of the landmark on a display in a case where the detection target is not detected and the landmark is detected (Kiyuna fig. 6, ¶67, when the position indicated by the photographed image Ic acquired at step S109 corresponds to the landmark only (step S110; Yes, and step S106 NO because attention part is not detected), the output unit performs an output prompting confirmation of the photographed image Ic displayed on the display device).
Although Kiyuna teaches both of the claimed “in a case where the detection part is detected,” and “in a case where the detection part is not detected,” these teachings come from different paths through the flowchart illustrated in fig. 6. Accordingly, Kiyuna does not anticipate in one single embodiment/path through its flowchart, the limitations of claim 1. However, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the endoscopy processing procedure flowchart in fig. 6 to have followed the specific YES/NO paths as given above in the rejection at least because that specific combination of processing steps would have been obvious to try, given that figure 6 depicts a finite number of yes/no paths to follow as predictable solutions with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(E).
Regarding claim 11, Kiyuna teaches wherein the one or more processors are configured to perform a target detection display process of displaying the actual position information of the detection target and the position information of the landmark on the display in a case where the detection target is detected (Kiyuna fig. 6, ¶67, in following the flowchart through the path of step S104, then step S105 to generate and store the landmark, then step S106 YES because the attention part is detected, then at step S111, the output unit displays information on the landmark immediately before or immediately after the attention part when it corresponds to the attention part, allowing for the inspector to recognize relative positions, thus the displaying being of position information for the attention part and the landmark).
Regarding claim 12, Kiyuna teaches an endoscope system comprising (Kiyuna ¶ 25, endoscopic system including display device and inspection device):
one or more processors configured to (Kiyuna ¶¶ 29–31, 59, inspection device 1 including a processor executing a program in a memory to execute the process of the inspection device):
acquire an endoscope image (Kiyuna ¶60, acquisition unit acquires a photographed image);
acquire detection target actual position information of a detection target by performing a first detection process on the endoscope image (Kiyuna ¶¶ 63, 66, in step 106, YES branch for when the attention part has been designated or detected, then attention part information is generated from the position information generation unit, where the position determination unit 44 determines that the position indicated by the photographed image Ic acquired at step S109 corresponds to the attention part (actual position information of the detection target));
acquire position information of a landmark by performing a second detection process on the endoscope image(Kiyuna ¶¶ 62, 63, when step S106 follows the YES path, the attention part (detection target) is detected, and step S105, the landmark position information is determined and acquired in a separate step/second detection process, and the landmark position information is stored in the landmark position information storage unit);
perform a landmark setting process of setting a relative relationship by associating any of the detection target actual position information or detection target estimated position information obtained from a position information estimation process based on the position information of the landmark, with the position information of the landmark (Kiyuna ¶67, at step s111, information on the landmark is displayed (and thus setting the relative relationship associating landmark to attention part) immediately before or immediately after the attention part when it corresponds to the attention part), each time the endoscope image is updated and the detection target actual position information or the detection target estimated position information is acquired (Kiyuna fig. 6, step S110 and S111 will be executed each time the pointed end unit is reinserted and steps S102 through S111 are executed over again (each time)); and
display the detection target actual position information or the detection target estimated position information on a display (Kiyuna fig. 6, ¶67, in following the flowchart through the path of step S104, then step S105 to generate and store the landmark, then step S106 YES because the attention part is detected, then at step S111, the output unit displays information on the landmark immediately before or immediately after the attention part when it corresponds to the attention part, allowing for the inspector to recognize relative positions, thus the displaying being of position information for the attention part and the landmark).
Although Kiyuna teaches a series of steps that are executed upon the pointed end unit being inserted, including steps S102–S112, Kiyuna does not explicitly teach repeating this process of re-inserting the pointed end unit. Accordingly, Kiyuna does not anticipate in one the limitations of claim 12. However, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the endoscopy processing procedure flowchart in fig. 6 to have repeated, thus “each time” a photographed image is acquired and re-looping through the flowchart in fig. 6 at least because doing so would have been a duplication of steps with predictable results. See MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B).
Claims 2, 6, 9, 10, 13, 14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kiyuna, as set forth above regarding claims 1 and 15, and further in view of Wang et al., US Patent Application Publication No. US 2020/0030038 A1 (herein “Wang”).
Regarding claims 2 and 16, with deficiencies of Kiyuna noted in square brackets, and with claim 2 as exemplary, Kiyuna teaches wherein the one or more processors are configured to [calculate estimated position information of the detection target by] a position information estimation process based on the position information of the landmark, in a case where the detection target is not detected and the landmark is detected (Kiyuna ¶67, the display displays information on the display device, enabling the inspector to recognize the relative position of the attention part with respect to the landmark at step S111, where a flow chart path consisting of step S110; Yes, and step S106 NO is where the attention part (detection target) is not detected but the landmark is), [and in the target non-detection display process, the estimated position information of the detection target and the position information of the landmark are displayed on the display].
Kiyuna does not teach, but Wang teaches calculate estimated position information of the detection target by (Wang ¶165, machine-vision algorithm using features observed by the camera (landmark) used to calculate the three-dimensional position of the object (detection target)), and in the target non-detection display process, the estimated position information of the detection target and the position information of the landmark are displayed on the display (Wang ¶191, screen device displaying reference/fiducial marker (landmark) 1900 and end of guide probe 2210 shown with a circle (detection target)).
Therefore, taking the teachings of Kiyuna and Wang together as a whole, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the endoscopy system disclosed in Kiyuna to include the calculation and displaying specifically cited to above from Wang at least because doing so would enhance the performance of image guidance systems.
Regarding claim 6, Kiyuna teaches the endoscope and endoscope images (Kiyuna ¶ 41, endoscope capturing images in a time series), but does not explicitly teach where Wang teaches wherein the image includes a first image based on first illumination light and a second image based on second illumination light having a spectrum different from a spectrum of the first illumination light (Wang ¶¶ 76, 100, 102, first and second lasers, each with a different spectrum of visible light, used for imaging, thus any image taken being based on the two lasers, with a first image taken in one position, and a second image taken after rotating 90 degrees), and the one or more processors are configured to detect the detection target and the landmark from the second image (Wang ¶105, orthogonal images (including the second) used for trajectory planning and visualization) and to display the actual position information of the detection target and the position information of the landmark on the first image (Wang ¶107, figs. 12A, 12B, black pointer added to displayed image for a detection target, with a dashed line as a landmark).
Therefore, taking the teachings of Kiyuna and Wang together as a whole, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the endoscopy system disclosed in Kiyuna to include the lasers, imaging and displaying specifically cited to above from Wang at least because doing so would enhance the performance of image guidance systems.
Regarding claim 9, Kiyuna teaches wherein the one or more processors are configured to:
detect a new landmark at a position different from a position of the landmark that has already been detected in a case where the endoscope image of a new frame is acquired in a state where a position information estimation process based on the position information of the landmark is continued (Kiyuna fig. 6, ¶¶ 64, 60–62, at step 108, the “NO” path leads back to step 102 where a new photographed image is acquired, and at step S105, another “new” landmark position information is generated and stored);
perform a new landmark setting process of associating estimated position information of the detection target with the new landmark; (Kiyuna ¶ 62, step S105, the landmark position information is determined and acquired in a separate step/second detection process, and the landmark position information is stored in the landmark position information storage unit (setting)), after the new landmark setting process, in a case where the endoscope image of a new frame is acquired and the landmark necessary for the position information estimation process is not recognized, perform the position information estimation process using the new landmark setting process (Kiyuna fig. 6, ¶67, when the position indicated by the photographed image Ic acquired at step S109 corresponds to the landmark only (step S110; YES for attention part only not landmark correspondence, but step S105 has already stored a new landmark), the output unit performs an output prompting confirmation of the photographed image Ic displayed on the display device to enable an inspector to recognize the relative position of the attention part with respect to the new landmark from landmark saving step in S105 ); and
and display the estimated position information of the detection target on the display (Kiyuna ¶ 67, the output unit displays information on the landmark immediately before or immediately after the attention part when it corresponds to the attention part).
Kiyuna does not explicitly teach but Wang teaches and calculate the estimated position information of the detection target (Wang ¶165, machine-vision algorithm using features observed by the camera (landmark) used to calculate the three-dimensional position of the object (detection target)).
Therefore, taking the teachings of Kiyuna and Wang together as a whole, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the endoscopy system disclosed in Kiyuna to include the calculation specifically cited to above from Wang at least because doing so would enhance the performance of image guidance systems.
Regarding claim 10, Kiyuna teaches wherein the new landmark is position information of at least any of a mucous membrane pattern, a shape of an organ, or marking by a user operation (Kiyuna ¶26, photographed image IC of the lumen of the subject’s organ (shape of an organ) such as a large bowel which is regarded as a landmark), and the position information of the new landmark is displayed on the display in a display mode different from a display mode of the landmark (Kiyuna fig. 6, ¶67, output unit displays information on the landmark immediately before or after (therefore, when before for the new landmark, this is a different mode then displaying after for the first landmark) the attention part).
Regarding claim 13, Kiyuna teaches wherein, in a case where a new landmark is detected by acquiring the endoscope image of a new frame in a state where the position information estimation process is continued (Kiyuna fig. 6, ¶¶ 64, 60–62, at step 108, the “NO” path leads back to step 102 where a new photographed image is acquired, and at step S105, another “new” landmark position information is generated and stored), a new landmark setting process of setting a new relative relationship by associating the detection target estimated position information with the new landmark is performed as the landmark setting process (Kiyuna ¶ 62, step S105, the landmark position information is determined and acquired in a separate step/second detection process, and the landmark position information is stored in the landmark position information storage unit (setting)), after the new landmark setting process, in a case where the landmark necessary for the position information estimation process is not recognized, a position information estimation process based on the new relative relationship is performed (Kiyuna fig. 6, ¶67, when the position indicated by the photographed image Ic acquired at step S109 corresponds to the landmark only (step S110; YES for attention part only not landmark correspondence, but step S105 has already stored a new landmark), the output unit performs an output prompting confirmation of the photographed image Ic displayed on the display device to enable an inspector to recognize the relative position of the attention part with respect to the new landmark from landmark saving step in S105 ), and the new detection target estimated position information is displayed on the display (Kiyuna ¶ 67, the output unit displays information on the landmark immediately before or immediately after the attention part when it corresponds to the attention part).
Kiyuna does not explicitly teach but Wang teaches new detection target estimated position information is calculated (Wang ¶165, machine-vision algorithm using features observed by the camera (landmark) used to calculate the three-dimensional position of the object (detection target)).
Therefore, taking the teachings of Kiyuna and Wang together as a whole, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the endoscopy system disclosed in Kiyuna to include the calculation specifically cited to above from Wang at least because doing so would enhance the performance of image guidance systems.
Regarding claim 14, Kiyuna teaches wherein the new landmark is position information of at least any of a mucous membrane pattern, a shape of an organ, or marking by a user operation (Kiyuna ¶26, photographed image IC of the lumen of the subject’s organ (shape of an organ) such as a large bowel which is regarded as a landmark).
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kiyuna in view of Wang, and further in view of Hussain et al., "Contribution of Augmented Reality to Minimally Invasive Computer-Assisted Cranial Base Surgery," in IEEE Journal of Biomedical and Health Informatics, vol. 24, no. 7, pp. 2093-2106, July 2020, doi: 10.1109/JBHI.2019.2954003 (herein “Hussain”).
Regarding claim 3, with deficiencies of Kiyuna noted in square brackets, Kiyuna teaches wherein the one or more processors are configured to [calculate estimated position information of the detection target by] a position information estimation process based on the position information of the landmark, in a case where the detection target is not detected and the landmark is detected (Kiyuna ¶67, the display displays information on the display device, enabling the inspector to recognize the relative position of the attention part with respect to the landmark at step S111, where a flow chart path consisting of step S110; Yes, and step S106 NO is where the attention part (detection target) is not detected but the landmark is), [the display has a main screen on which the endoscope image is displayed and a sub screen provided at a position different from a position of the main screen,][and in the target non-detection display process, the estimated position information of the detection target and the position information of the landmark are displayed on the sub screen].
Kiyuna does not teach, but Wang teaches calculate estimated position information of the detection target by (Wang ¶165, machine-vision algorithm using features observed by the camera (landmark) used to calculate the three-dimensional position of the object (detection target)), and in the target non-detection display process, the estimated position information of the detection target and the position information of the landmark are displayed on the screen (Wang ¶191, screen device displaying reference/fiducial marker (landmark) 1900 and end of guide probe 2210 shown with a circle (detection target)).
Kiyuna does not teach but Hussain teaches sub screen, and the display has a main screen on which the endoscope image is displayed and a sub screen provided at a position different from a position of the main screen (Hussain page 2100, fig. 4, AR display including main screen of endoscopic view on the left, and on the right a sub screen with target points depicted via augmented reality).
Therefore, taking the teachings of Kiyuna and Wang together as a whole, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the endoscopy system disclosed in Kiyuna to include the calculation and displaying specifically cited to above from Wang at least because doing so would enhance the performance of image guidance systems.
Further, taking the teachings of Kiyuna modified by Wang and Hussain together as a whole, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the endoscopy system disclosed in Kiyuna to include the displaying specifically cited to above from Hussain at least because doing so would increase safety and cost-effectiveness of machine vision assisted surgery. See Hussain Abstract.
Regarding claim 4, with deficiencies of Kiyuna noted in square brackets, Kiyuna teaches wherein the one or more processors are configured to [calculate estimated position information of the detection target by] a position information estimation process based on the position information of the landmark (Kiyuna ¶67, the display displays information on the display device, enabling the inspector to recognize the relative position of the attention part with respect to the landmark at step S111), [the display has a main screen on which the endoscope image is displayed and a sub screen provided at a position different from a position of the main screen,][and in the target non-detection display process, the estimated position information of the detection target and the position information of the landmark are displayed on the main screen,] [and position information of the detection target and the position information of the landmark are displayed in a still image of an endoscope image acquired at a timing at which the detection target is detected, on the sub screen].
Kiyuna does not teach, but Wang teaches calculate estimated position information of the detection target by (Wang ¶165, machine-vision algorithm using features observed by the camera (landmark) used to calculate the three-dimensional position of the object (detection target)), and in the target non-detection display process, the estimated position information of the detection target and the position information of the landmark are displayed on the main screen (Wang ¶191, screen device displaying reference/fiducial marker (landmark) 1900 and end of guide probe 2210 shown with a circle (detection target)).
Kiyuna does not teach but Hussain teaches the display has a main screen on which the endoscope image is displayed and a sub screen provided at a position different from a position of the main screen (Hussain page 2100, fig. 4, AR display including main screen of endoscopic view on the left, and on the right a sub screen with target points depicted via augmented reality), and position information of the detection target and the position information of the landmark are displayed in a still image of an endoscope image acquired at a timing at which the detection target is detected, on the sub screen (Hussain page 2094, fig. 2, and page 2100, fig. 4, AR display is overlay on the right side of the display (sub screen) showing structures overlaid on the endoscopic view (still image), thus including the position of the detection target and landmarks, and where page 2103, right column teaches that processing speeds for the AR system can be 40 frames per second, providing the perception of continuous and flicker-free visual output (at a timing which the detection target is detected)).
Therefore, taking the teachings of Kiyuna and Wang together as a whole, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the endoscopy system disclosed in Kiyuna to include the calculation and displaying specifically cited to above from Wang at least because doing so would enhance the performance of image guidance systems.
Further, taking the teachings of Kiyuna modified by Wang and Hussain together as a whole, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the endoscopy system disclosed in Kiyuna to include the displaying specifically cited to above from Hussain at least because doing so would increase safety and cost-effectiveness of machine vision assisted surgery. See Hussain Abstract.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kiyuna, as set forth above regarding claim 1, and further in view of Kamiyama et al., US Patent Application Publication No. US 2024/0274272 A1 (herein “Kamiyama”).
Regarding claim 5, Kiyuna does not explicitly teach but Kamiyama teaches wherein, in the landmark setting process, the position information of the landmark detected around the detection target among the landmarks is associated with the actual position information of the detection target (Kamiyama ¶77, determination of a bounding box (landmark around the detection target) from among candidate bounding boxes being the one that enables representation of the position and shape (the actual position information of the detection target) in a more detailed manner).
Therefore, taking the teachings of Kiyuna and Kamiyama together as a whole, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the endoscopy system disclosed in Kiyuna to include the bounding box selection best suited to the detection target as specifically cited to above from Kamiyama at least because doing so would provide object detection with high-speed processing and maintaining a real-time characteristic. See Kamiyama ¶59.
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kiyuna in view of Sakamoto et al., US Patent Application Publication No. US 2017/0273707 A1 (herein “Sakamoto”).
Regarding claim 7, Kiyuna teaches wherein the landmark includes (Kiyuna ¶¶ 62, 63, step S105, the landmark position information is determined and acquired), but does not where Sakamoto explicitly teach “a blood vessel emphasized by chemical fluorescence.” (Sakamoto ¶ 47, fluorescent chemical agent ICG is administered to the vein of the patient so that the fluorescent chemical agent ICG is contained in the blood, and the fluorescence in the fluorescent chemical agent ICG is emitted by infrared excitation light to display and observe blood vessels in the joint 100 and bloodstream information on the display through the arthroscope).
Therefore, taking the teachings of Kiyuna and Sakamoto together as a whole, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the endoscopy system disclosed in Kiyuna to include the chemical fluorescence as specifically cited to above from Sakamoto at least because doing so would enhance the visibility and thus accuracy of tissue to operate on. See Sakamoto ¶52.
Regarding claim 8, Kiyuna teaches the detection target is at least one of (Kiyuna ¶¶ 63, 66, in step 106, YES branch for when the attention part has been designated or detected), but does not explicitly teach where Sakamoto teaches “a blood vessel, a bleeding portion, a lesion part, or a specific organ emphasized by chemical fluorescence.” (Sakamoto ¶ 47, fluorescent chemical agent ICG is administered to the vein of the patient so that the fluorescent chemical agent ICG is contained in the blood, and the fluorescence in the fluorescent chemical agent ICG is emitted by infrared excitation light to display and observe blood vessels in the joint 100 and bloodstream information on the display through the arthroscope).
Therefore, taking the teachings of Kiyuna and Sakamoto together as a whole, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the endoscopy system disclosed in Kiyuna to include the chemical fluorescence as specifically cited to above from Sakamoto at least because doing so would enhance the visibility and thus accuracy of tissue to operate on. See Sakamoto ¶52.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHELLE M KOETH whose telephone number is (571)272-5908. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 09:00-17:00, Friday 09:00-13:00, EDT/EST.
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, Vincent Rudolph can be reached at 571-272-8243. 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.
MICHELLE M. KOETH
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2671
/MICHELLE M KOETH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2671