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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species I, Claims 1-4 & 7-10, in the reply filed on February 6, 2026 is acknowledged.
Disposition of Claims
Claims 1-10 are pending.
Claims 1-4 & 7-10 are rejected.
Claims 5-6 are withdrawn.
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 1-4 & 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements and/or steps are well-understood, routine, and conventional in the art. They represent components and/or activities which would routinely be used in applying the abstract idea. As such, they do not meaningfully limit the claims, taken as a whole, to a particular application of the abstract idea; rather, the claims would tend to monopolize the abstract idea itself in practice.
A review of the instant claims using the Alice two-part analysis is provided herein.
Step 1: The claims are at least one of the four statutory categories, in this instant, a machine (Claims 1-4 & 7-8), a process (Claim 9) and a product (Claim 10).
Step 2A:
Prong One: The claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite a mental processes (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). The mental process is:
recognizing a landmark in an image; and
correcting scope information.
Prong Two: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements: (a) merely includes instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea; and (b) the additional element does no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Step 2B: The claims do not contain additional elements which amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The instant claims recite the additional elements of acquiring an image captured by an endoscope, acquiring scope information, acquiring depth information and displaying information.
These additional elements do not amount to significantly more because they represent components and/or activities which are generic, routine and well understood insignificant extra-solution activity for applying the abstract idea. As such, they do not meaningfully limit the claims, taken as a whole, to a particular application of the abstract idea; rather, the claims would tend to monopolize the abstract idea itself in practice.
In accordance with MPEP § 2106.07(a)(III), Examiner notes that apparatus, method and CRM are routine, conventional, and are recited at a high degree of generality. Specifically, Rauniyar et al. (US 2021/0090226), Lansel et al. (US 2018/0232899) and Higuchi (US 2015/0363929) describe well known apparatuses, methods and CRMs including the additional elements of:
acquiring an image captured by an endoscope (e.g., Rauniyar, [0046]; Lansel, [0088]; Higuchi, [0098]),
acquiring scope information (e.g., Rauniyar, [0067]; Higuchi, [0058]),
acquiring depth information (e.g., Rauniyar, [0067]; Lansel, [0090]; Higuchi, [0099]), and
displaying information (e.g., Rauniyar, [0047]; Lansel, [0091]; Higuchi, [0060]).
Accordingly, these additional elements of the instant claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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)(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.
Claims 1-4 & 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Hane (US 2022/0398771).
Regarding Claim 1, Hane discloses an image processing apparatus (Fig. 1, 1; [0037]) comprising a processor (Fig. 3, 21; [0097]),
wherein the processor performs:
image acquisition processing (Fig. 13, at S12; [0097]) of acquiring a time-series intraluminal image (a lumen image; [0097]) captured by a scope (Fig. 21, 2b; [0145]) of an endoscope (Fig. 21, 2; [0037]);
scope information acquisition processing (Fig. 13, at S14; [0099]) of acquiring scope information relating to a change of the scope (Fig. 21, information concerning posture and position of 11; [0099]);
landmark recognition processing (Fig. 13, at S15 [0101]) of recognizing a landmark in the intraluminal image (extracted feature points of the lumen; [0101]);
scope information correction processing (Fig. 13, at S17; [0100] & [0113]) of correcting the scope information (Fig. 21, corrected information concerning posture and position of 11; [0100]) using information relating to the landmark recognized in the landmark recognition processing ([0113]); and
depth information acquisition (Fig. 13, at S16; [0112]) processing of acquiring depth information of the intraluminal image (luminal structure information; [0112]) using the intraluminal image and the scope information corrected in the scope information correction processing ([0112]).
Regarding Claim 2, Hane discloses the image processing apparatus according to Claim 1. Hane further discloses wherein, with reference to a position of the scope at a time T (T0; [0097]), the scope information acquisition processing acquires a change amount of an insertion length of the scope and change amounts relating to bending and rotation of the scope at a time T + α (Fig. 21, information concerning posture and position of 11 at T0+nΔt wherein the information concerning posture and position are insertion and twist amounts; [0099] & [0143]).
Regarding Claim 3, Hane discloses the image processing apparatus according to Claim 1. Hane further discloses wherein the scope information acquisition processing acquires information relating to an insertion length of the scope and bending and rotation of the scope from an operation of an operation section of the scope (Fig. 21, the information concerning posture and position are insertion and twist amounts which are measured by 62 which is disposed at 2a of 2; [0099] & [0145]).
Regarding Claim 4, Hane discloses the image processing apparatus according to Claim 1. Hane further discloses wherein the landmark recognition processing recognizes a temporal change of a correspondence point of the landmark ([0101]), and wherein the scope information correction processing corrects the scope information using the temporal change of the correspondence point ([0112]).
Regarding Claim 7, Hane discloses the image processing apparatus according to Claim 1. Hane further discloses
Regarding Claim 8, Hane discloses the image processing apparatus according to Claim 7. Hane further discloses wherein the processor further performs:
display control processing (Fig. 13, at S18; [0115]) of displaying geometric information relating to a lumen on a display unit based on the depth information acquired in the depth information acquisition processing ([0115]).
Regarding Claim 9, Hane discloses an image processing method ([0096]) using an image processing apparatus (Fig. 1, 1; [0037]) comprising a processor (Fig. 3, 21; [0097]), the method, performed by the processor, comprising:
an image acquisition step of acquiring a time-series intraluminal image captured by a scope of an endoscope (Fig. 13, S12; [0097]);
a scope information acquisition step of acquiring scope information relating to a change of the scope (Fig. 13, S14; [0099]);
a landmark recognition step of recognizing a landmark in the intraluminal image (Fig. 13, S15 [0101]);
a scope information correction step of correcting the scope information using information relating to the landmark recognized in the landmark recognition step (Fig. 13, S17; [0100] & [0113]); and
a depth information acquisition step of acquiring depth information of the intraluminal image using the intraluminal image and the scope information corrected in the scope information correction step (Fig. 13, S16; [0112]).
Regarding Claim 10, Hane discloses a non-transitory, computer-readable tangible recording medium having recorded therein a program for causing, when read by a computer, a processor of the computer ([0035]) to execute the image processing method according to Claim 9 (FOR THE SAKE OF BREVITY THE REJECTION OF CLAIM 9 IS NOT REPRODUCED HEREIN).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 2021/0090226; US 2020/0060528; US 2019/0365209; US 2019/0324261; US 2018/0232899; US 2018/0197306; US 2018/0110401; US 2017/0374292; US 2017/0325910; US 2016/0302653; US 2015/0363929 and US 2013/0321583.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHEN FLOYD LONDON whose telephone number is (571)272-4478. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 10:00 am ET - 6:00pm ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, MICHAEL CAREY can be reached at (571)270-7235. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/STEPHEN FLOYD LONDON/ Examiner, Art Unit 3795
/MICHAEL J CAREY/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3795
Prosecution Insights