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 group I and species a in the reply filed on 03/13/2026 is acknowledged.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-15 are pending, claims 4-6, 13, and 15 have been withdrawn from consideration, and claims 1-3, 7-12 and 14 are currently under consideration for patentability under 37 CFR 1.104
Foreign Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Japan on 04/23/2021. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the Japanese application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 1/16/2024 and 12/29/2025 have been considered by the examiner.
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)(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.
Claim(s) 1, 7, 11, 12, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim et al. (U.S. 2015/0117729).
With respect to claim 1, Kim et al. teaches an endoscope system comprising:
one or more processors (100a) configured to:
detect a region of interest in a subject image (para [0055]); and
perform a control to estimate a size of the region of interest (para [0057]) in a case where a position of the region of interest in the subject image is included in a specific region (polyp candidate region, para [0055])9, and not to estimate the size in a case where the position of at least the region of interest is not included in the specific region (see FIG. 6-8B for example).
With respect to claim 7, Kim et al. teaches the one or more processors are configured to notify a user of either detection of the region of interest or estimation of the size of the region of interest (FIG. 10).
With respect to claim 11, Kim et al. teaches the specific region is included in a region that is within a range of a certain distance from a center of the subject image (FIG. 6 for example).
With respect to claim 12, Kim et al. teaches in a case where a first axis extending in a first direction and a second axis extending in a second direction orthogonal to the first direction are defined in the subject image, the specific region is a rectangular region that is surrounded by a first lower limit boundary line indicating a lower limit on the first axis, a first upper limit boundary line indicating an upper limit on the first axis, a second lower limit boundary line indicating a lower limit on the second axis, and a second upper limit boundary line indicating an upper limit on the second axis (FIG. 6, 10).
With respect to claim 14, Kim et al. teaches the one or more processors are configured to display the specific region on a display (FIG. 6, 10).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 2-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (U.S. 2015/0117729) in view of Staples II et al. (U.S. 2015/0080652).
Kim et al. teaches an endoscope system as set forth above. However, Kim et al. does not teach wherein the one or more processors are configured to set a position, a size, or a range of the specific region using optical information included in an imaging optical system used for acquisition of the subject image.
With respect to claim 2, Staples et al. teaches an endoscope system wherein the one or more processors are configured to set a position, a size, or a range of the specific region using optical information included in an imaging optical system used for acquisition of the subject image (para [0063]).
With respect to claim 3, Staples et al. does not explicitly teach the one or more processors are configured to receive endoscope information about an endoscope, and specifies the optical information based on the endoscope information. However, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the processor acquire some information about the optical system in order to properly process the portion of the overall camera view.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to modify Kim et al. to include the one or more processors are configured to set a position, a size, or a range of the specific region using optical information included in an imaging optical system used for acquisition of the subject image in order to alleviate the image/spatial distortion issue of the larger FOV (para [0065] of Staples et al.).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (U.S. 2015/0117729) in view of Watanabe (U.S. 2020/0037856).
Kim et al. teaches an endoscope system as set forth above. However, Kim et al. does not teach movement guidance.
With respect to claim 8, Watanabe teaches an endoscope system wherein the one or more processors are configured to give a movement guidance notification notifying a user of a direction in which the region of interest is moved to be included in the specific region in a case where the position of the region of interest is not included in the specific region (FIG. 9).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to modify Kim et al. to include movement guidance in the manner taught by Watanabe in order to allow a doctor or the like to more reliably recognize the presence of the region of interest (para [0093] of Watanabe).
Claim(s) 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (U.S. 2015/0117729) in view of Tachibana (U.S. 2022/0202284).
Kim et al. teaches an endoscope system as set forth above. However, Kim et al. does not teach a non-estimable notification.
With respect to claim 9, Tachibana teaches an endoscope system wherein the one or more processors are configured to give a non-estimable notification notifying that the size cannot be estimated, in a case where the position of the region of interest is not included in the specific region or in a case where the size of the region of interest is larger than a size of the specific region so that the size is not estimated (FIG. 9).
With respect to claim 10, Tachibana teaches wherein the non-estimable notification is given using either a display in the subject image or a voice (FIG. 9).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to modify Kim et al. to include the non-estimable notification of Tachibana in order to provide a means of indicating that the user is too close to the region (para [0108] of Tachibana).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Alexandra Newton Surgan whose telephone number is (571)270-1618. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-4pm 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, 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.
/ALEXANDRA L NEWTON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3799
Prosecution Insights