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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 05/27/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-2, 7-11 are pending. Claims 3-6 are cancelled. Applicant’s amendment to the claims have overcome 112 rejections and objections previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action notified on 11/24/2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shino (US 20220337746) in view of Barral (US 10639104) and further in view of Inoue (JP 2003150603).
Regarding claim 1, Shino a system (FIG. 1) for creating a panoramic view of a surgical procedure, the system comprising;
a camera positionable in a body cavity for capturing real time images of a surgical site within a body cavity (Image processing device 1 acquires from the endoscope 3 an image which the endoscope 3 captures in time series. Para [0036]);
a display (Display 2) for displaying the real time images in real times;
at least one computing unit and at least one memory (Image processing device 1) storing instructions executable by the at least one computing unit to receive the real time images captured by the camera at time t during a surgical procedure;
stitch the non-real time images (The images are combined by extracting feature, matching features points and combining them to generate a panoramic image; FIG. 9; Para [0105], [0112]; Images from the previous inspections are used. Para [0089]-[0090]) of the body cavity, said non-real time images captured during the surgical procedure prior to time t, where said stitching creates a panoramic image (Image processing device 1 generates a panoramic image, based on a plurality of captured images of the substantially the entire lumen of the large bowel in pieces and which are generated in the insertion process or the ejection process of the endoscope 3 in the past endoscopic inspection; Para [0036]; The panoramic image generating unit 43 generates the panoramic image; FIG. 3; Para [0104]); and
display (Display 2; FIG.2) the panoramic image on the display.
Shino does not expressly disclose determine if a displayed non-real time image segment within said panoramic image is an aged non-real time image segment by tracking whether a period of time between initial capture of said non-real time image segment and a present time exceeds a predetermined duration; and
alert a user by altering a color of only the aged non-real time image segment within the panoramic image to distinguish it from remaining portions of the panoramic image.
Barral is directed to an image guided surgery (abstract) and teaches at least one computing unit and at least one memory storing instructions executable by the at least one computing unit to, determine if a displayed non-real time image segment within said image is an aged non-real time image segment (Warning is provided to indicate to the medical practitioner that the image data may be stale. Col. 6, lines 6-24; Note that to determine stale data one would need to determine a point of time in the past before which the data is considered as stale data.) by tracking whether a period of time between initial capture of said non-real time image segment and a present time exceeds a predetermined duration.
Inoue is directed to image processor system (abstract) and teaches alerting a user by altering the color of only the aged non-real time image segment to distinguish it from remaining portions of the image (If it is not within the predetermined period, the reference image is considered as the old image, and the operator is cautioned by changing the display color of only the reference image.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Shino to include warning in accordance with the teaching of Barral so that the inclusion of old data (stale data) in image could be notified to the user (Col. 6, lines 6-24 of Barral).
Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Shino to change the color of the old portion of the image in the panoramic image in accordance with the teaching of Inoue so that old image could be identified during the analysis of the panoramic image more conveniently.
Regarding claim 2, Shino wherein the instructions are executable by the at least one computing unit to repeat the receiving, stitching and displaying steps multiple times during the course of the surgical procedure (Note the repeating process of these process steps in FIG. 8 wherein if the inspection is not terminated, the acquiring and storing images are repeated. Note step S105.).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments submitted on 05/27/2026 have been fully considered. However, the arguments are not persuasive for the reasons stated below.
On page 1 of the remarks, the applicant states that Inoue (JP 2003-150603) constitutes non-analogous art. The examiner respectfully disagrees.
The invention in the instant application is trying to generate a panoramic image in a way that makes it easy for the user to know which portions of the panoramic image are relatively outdated, see para [0023] of the instant application. Inoue is directed to solving such problem by warning a user when the image under consideration is not within a predetermined time period by providing a color change. Thus, Inoue is still a reasonably pertinent art to the problem faced by the inventor. See MPEP 904.01(c); 2141.01(a). Portions below –
For example, for search purposes, a tea mixer and a concrete mixer may both be regarded as relating to the mixing art, this being the necessary function of each. Similarly, a brick-cutting machine and a biscuit cutting machine may be considered as having the same necessary function. See MPEP § 2141.01(a) for a discussion of analogous and nonanalogous art in the context of establishing a prima facie case of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103. See MPEP § 2131.05 for a discussion of analogous and nonanalogous art in the context of 35 U.S.C. 102.
In order for a reference to be proper for use in an obviousness rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103, the reference must be analogous art to the claimed invention. In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325, 72 USPQ2d 1209, 1212 (Fed. Cir. 2004). A reference is analogous art to the claimed invention if: (1) the reference is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention (even if it addresses a different problem); or (2) the reference is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor (even if it is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention). Note that "same field of endeavor" and "reasonably pertinent" are two separate tests for stablishing analogous art; it is not necessary for a reference to fulfill both tests in order to qualify as analogous art. See Bigio, 381 F.3d at 1325, 72 USPQ2d at 1212.
On page 2 of the remarks, the applicant states “the references do not teach or suggest the core temporal tracking network of amended Claim 1.” The applicant states “It does not stitch active intraoperative data on the fly during a single procedural runtime loop. Barral merely generates a "stale image data" warning when mechanical components or a surgeon's hands physically occlude a secondary modality camera feed past a fixed threshold. It does not track, segment, or map individual time-degraded background sections within a continuously active video canvas.” Regarding these arguments, the examiner’s position is that the above features are not yet positively recited in the claim.
The applicant further states that the combination is impermissible hindsight reconstruction. The examiner respectfully disagrees because there is a motivation to combine each of these references. See rejection above.
Accordingly, applicants’ arguments are not persuasive at this time.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-11 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Reasons for Allowance
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
None of the art of record teach the features recited in claims 7-11 within the environment of panoramic image, along with the remaining features of claim 1. Therefore, claims 7-11 are considered to include allowable subject matter.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHANKAR R GHIMIRE whose telephone number is (571)272-0515. The examiner can normally be reached 8 AM - 5 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Anhtuan Nguyen can be reached at 571-272-4963. 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.
/SHANKAR RAJ GHIMIRE/Examiner, Art Unit 3795
/ANHTUAN T NGUYEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3795
7/24/26
Prosecution Insights