Detailed Office Action
1. This communication is being filed in response to the initial submission having a mailing date of [2/23/2024], in which a three (3) month Shortened Statutory Period for Response has been set.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
2. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Acknowledgements
3. Upon new entry, claims (1 -9) appear pending for examination, of which (1, 8, 9) are the three (3) parallel running independent claims on record.
Information Disclosure Statement
4. The Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) that was/were submitted on 09/21/2023, is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, being considered by the Examiner.
Specification
5. The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Drawings
6. The submitted Drawings on date 09/21/2023 has been accepted and considered under the 37 CFR 1.121 (d).
Claim rejection section
35 USC 112(a)
7. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
7.1. Independent Claims (1, 8 and 9) and the associated dependencies are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The above claims recite – “a surgery mode setting unit that sets a surgery mode…” that when being enabled via CCU unit (32) [specs; 0026-0029], it fails to define the “mode set, mode selection and/or functionality” to be applied otherwise, failing to satisfy the minimum level of details of the written description requirement, in such a way to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor had possession of the claimed invention. See MPEP 2161.01; and specifically see Vasudevan Software, Inc. v. MicroStrategy, Inc., 782 F.3d 671, 681-683, 114 USPQ2d 1349, 1356, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
7.2. The Office considers that by just introducing “a surgery mode setting unit that sets a mode… it does not entitle the inventor to claim any and all means for achieving that objective. See also LizardTech, 424 F.3d at 1346,76 USPQ2d at 1733.
7.3. For the purpose of examination, and because no specific algorithm disclosed in the process, the cited above feature will be read – (e.g. a imaging fov(s) switch between different view parameters; [specs; 0039]; prev. captured and precessed, having different lengths and EDoF inbuild features). Proper correction and/or clarification is/are still required moving forward.
35 USC § 103
8. 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 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.
8.1. The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 non-obviousness.
8.2. Claims (1 -9) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shelton; et al. (US 11,759,283 B2); hereafter “Shelton”) in view of Kagawa; et al (US 2015/0309284; hereafter “Kagawa”).
Claim 1. Shelton discloses the invention substantially as claimed - A medical imaging system comprising: (e.g. a surgical system of the same, Figs (2, 11), comprising one or more camera sensors (144), as detailed illustrated in the sensing visualization application (320a, 320b) of Fig. 9 [20: 08]; one/more monitors (146; 652) for outputting depicting real, virtual, virtually-augmented view images, with additional associated information; [14: 05; 23: 15]).
The system is able to generate a virtual three-dimensional (3D) imaging composite, of at least a portion of anatomical organ based on visualization data from one/more imaging devices with augmentation image overlays, able to identify anatomical structures relevant to the surgical procedure; [1: 40]);
Shelton further teaches - a surgery mode setting unit that sets a surgery mode; (e.g. a control setting unit (602, Fig. 11), able to supply and control different waveform modes (or range of waveforms (622)), depending of the required procedure; [21: 30; 30: 12]);
and a selection processing unit that performs, on a basis of the surgery mode, (e.g. see control unit (602); [21: 30]) selection of switching a display image (e.g. including overlay control (610), able to switch/override display settings [22: 03]) from among two or more types of images captured by at least two pieces of imaging elements having different optical path lengths from one imaging lens; (e.g. one or more camera sensors (144), as similarly illustrated in the sensing visualization unit (320a, 320b) of Fig. 9 [20: 08]),
Even when EDoF technique was part of common knowledge, used in the medical field way before the invention was made (see section 9.2 below), its note that Shelton fails to disclose - an extended depth of field (EDOF) image obtained by extending a depth of field by combining those images.
For the purpose of additional clarification, and in the same field of endeavor, Kagawa teaches a medical imaging system of the same, as shown in Figs. (1 and 3); comprising a processing unit (20) including a switch unit (44), able to switch between different modes, depending of surgical procedures requirements, able to broadcast (i.e. see display (21)) image composite of the same (46); [0108]; that employs EDoF enhancement, by obtaining contrast for each pixel of the Near image, Mid image, and Far image that are captured with the region of interest of the ROI image being in focus by the focus processing unit, and selecting and combining pixels having highest contrast [Kagawa; 0083, 0100, and 0111]; obtain an image with a wider depth of field (i.e. using L1, L2, and L3; Fig. 5) and contrast processing; [0065 -0071; 0106 -0107]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the three-dimensional imaging composite solutions of Shelton, with the combined “high pixels contrast” composite of Kagawa, in order to provide (e.g. an enhanced “wider depth of field” of the output signal for display; [Kagawa; 0111].)
Claim 2. Shelton/Kagawa discloses - The medical imaging system according to . The medical imaging system according to wherein a Near image focused on a near point, a Mid image focused on a middle point, and a Far image focused on a far point are used, the Near image, the Mid image, and the Far image being captured by three pieces of imaging elements having different optical path lengths from one imaging lens; (e.g. see similar EDoF enhancement, by obtaining contrast for each pixel of the Near image, Mid image, and Far image that are captured with the region of interest of the ROI image being in focus by the focus processing unit, and selecting and combining pixels having highest contrast [Kagawa; 0083, 0100, and 0111]; obtain an image with a wider depth of field (i.e. using L1, L2, and L3; Fig. 5) and contrast processing; [0065 -0071; 0106 -0107]; the same motivation applies herein.)
Claim 3. Shelton/Kagawa discloses -The medical imaging system according to claim 2, wherein the selection processing unit performs, on a basis of the surgery mode, selection of switching a display image (e.g. see switch between different modes, depending of surgical procedures requirements, able to broadcast (i.e. see display (21)) image composite of the same (46); [Kagawa; 0108])
from among the Near image, the Mid image, the Far image, the EDOF image obtained by combining the Near image and the Mid image, the EDOF image obtained by combining the Mid image and the Far image, and the EDOF image obtained by combining the Near image, the Mid image, and the Far image; (e.g. see similar EDoF enhancement, by obtaining contrast for each pixel of the Near image, Mid image, and Far image that are captured with the region of interest of the ROI image being in focus by the focus processing unit, and selecting and combining pixels having highest contrast [Kagawa; 0083, 0100, and 0111]; obtain an image with a wider depth of field (i.e. using L1, L2, and L3; Fig. 5) and contrast processing; [0065 -0071; 0106 -0107]; same motivation applies herein.)
Claim 4. Shelton/Kagawa discloses -The medical imaging system according to claim 2, wherein, regarding optical path lengths of a first imaging element that captures the Mid image, a second imaging element that captures the Near image, and a third imaging element that captures the Far image, the optical path lengths being from an imaging lens, (e.g. see similar in at least [Kagawa; 0083, 0100, and 0111]);
a difference in optical path length between the first imaging element and the second imaging element is smaller than a difference in optical path length between the first imaging element and the third imaging element; (e.g. see imaging elements having different optical path lengths from one imaging lens (figures 2, 4 - 6, and 8), including value evaluation of contrast AF is obtained; [Kagawa; 0008] and focal adjustment [Kagawa; 0065 -0071, 0102, 0105 -0107, 0110]; the same motivation applies herein).
Claim 5. Shelton/Kagawa discloses -The medical imaging system according to claim 2, the medical imaging system further comprising an EDOF image generation unit that generates an extended depth of field (EDOF) image obtained by obtaining contrast for each pixel of the Near image, Mid image, and Far image, (e.g. see similar EDoF enhancement; [Kagawa; 0083, 0100, and 0111]);
and selecting and combining pixels having highest contrast; (e.g. see similar in at least Figs. (2, 4, 6, 8), wherein the control unit sets a region of interest that is an area for which an evaluation value of contrast AF is obtained [Kagawa; 0008]; the same motivation applies herein.)
Claim 6. Shelton/Kagawa discloses -The medical imaging system according to claim 2, the medical imaging system further comprising a color- coded image generation unit that generates a color-coded image (e.g. see color filter applications of the same; [Kagawa; 0056; 0116]) obtained by setting any one of the Near image, the Mid image, and the Far image as a base image, (e.g. see similar in at least [Kagawa; 0083, 0100, and 0111]);
obtaining contrast for each pixel of the Near image, Mid image, and Far image, and superimposing, on the base image, a color corresponding to an image (e.g. see evaluation of contrast AF is obtained; [Kagawa; 0008] and focal adjustment [Kagawa; 0065 -0071, 0102, 0105 -0107, 0110]); from which highest contrast is obtained; (e.g. see evaluation of contrast AF is obtained; [Kagawa; 0008; 0083, 0100, and 0111]; the same motivation applies herein.)
Claim 7. Shelton/Kagawa discloses -The medical imaging system according to claim 1, wherein, as the surgery mode, a cataract surgery mode, a vitreous surgery mode, and a laparoscope mode are set; (e.g. see plurality or surgery procedures/modes applications enabled by the system; [Shelton; 13: 05]; also including minimally invasive surgery (MIS) and robotic approaches using either endoscope or exoscope; [Shelton; 80: 35].)
Claim 8. Shelton/Kagawa discloses -A medical imaging device comprising: a surgery mode setting unit that sets a surgery mode; and a selection processing unit that performs, on a basis of the surgery mode, selection of switching a display image from among two or more types of images captured by at least two pieces of imaging elements having different optical path lengths from one imaging lens, and an extended depth of field (EDOF) image obtained by extending a depth of field by combining those images. (Current lists all the same elements as recite in Claim 1 above, bur in “device form” instead, and is/are therefore on the same premise.)
Claim 9. Shelton/Kagawa discloses - A control method comprising, by a medical imaging system: setting a surgery mode; and performing, on a basis of the surgery mode, selection of switching a display image from among two or more types of images captured by at least two pieces of imaging elements having different optical path lengths from one imaging lens, and an extended depth of field (EDOF) image obtained by extending a depth of field by combining those images. (Current lists all the same elements as recite in Claim 1 above, bur in “method form” instead, and is/are therefore on the same premise.)
Prior Art Citations
9. The following List of prior art, made of record and not relied upon, is/are considered
pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
9.1. Patent documentation
US 9,897,792 B2 Rout; et al. G06T5/50; G02B27/0081; H04N23/689;
US 11,759,283 B2 Shelton; et al. A61B34/10; A61B1/0005; A61B1/0016;
US 12,200,354 B2 Ozaki; et al. A61B3/14; A61B3/0058; H04N23/632;
US 20150309284 A1 Kagawa; et al. A61B1/00; G02B27/1066; A61B1/0005;
US 20240180396 A1 Takahashi; et al. A61B3/14; G02B7/36; A61B1/00;
9.2. Non-Patent documentation:
_ 3D visualization and virtual simulation in solid tumors; Fuchs – 2005;
_ Extended depth of focus imaging; Zalevsky – 2010;
CONCLUSIONS
10. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LUIS PEREZ-FUENTES (luis.perez-fuentes@uspto.gov) whose telephone number is (571) 270 -1168. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8am-5pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, WILLIAM VAUGHN can be reached on (571) 272-3922. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 272 -3922. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated system, please call (800) 786 -9199 (USA OR CANADA) or (571) 272 -1000.
/LUIS PEREZ-FUENTES/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2481.