DETAILED ACTION
1. This communication is being filed in response to the submission dated 06/23/2026 in which a (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; 4; 8 -25) remain pending for examination, of which (1, 8, 9) are the three parallel running independent claims on record, being amended. Claims (2 -3 and 5 -6) were cancelled, and claims (10 -25) newly added.
3.1. Examiner thanks’ Applicant representative (Atty. S. Morse; Reg. No, 35,292) for the new list of amendments provided, for the detailed remarks and clarifications, and for the cooperation expediting the case.
Response to arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been carefully considered, but they’re not persuasive, for at least the following reasons:
Regarding Applicant’s remarks:
a) Applicant argues the support for - “a surgery mode setting unit that sets a surgery mode ...” via an algorithm control branch logic [Remarks; page 10], however no “algorithm control” found in the specs, supporting Applicant’s arguments, and amended features in the claims. In fact, the world “algorithm” is nowhere found in the papers, as originally filed. Proper clarification is required moving forward.
In this same regard, Shelton specifically discloses - a surgery mode setting unit that sets a surgery mode via, (e.g. a setting module (602), Fig. 11), and step (4101) in Fig. 29, also able to supply and control different optical lengths (see optical filter; [14: 29 and 33: 40]), including different waveforms configurations (or range of waveforms (622)), depending of the required procedure to be applied; [21: 30; 30: 12]);
Kagawa analogously teaches a switch module (44), able to customize the required imaging configuration/parameters, based on the settled surgical procedures requirements; [Kagawa; 0108], including the distance settings, (also called “optical path length” from the image pickup objective lens 133 to the light receiving plane 13, as shown in at least Fig. 15; [Kagawa].
b) Applicant argues the lack of support for - “the surgery mode circuitry structurally alters the “mathematical combination” of the EDOF processing system based on the active mode” [Remarks; page 10], however no “mathematical combination” nor any related “active mode” defined/found in the specs, supporting this technique. Proper clarification is required moving forward.
In this same regard, Kagawa in details discloses an EDOF image generation unit that generates extended depth of field (DOF) image obtained 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 (paragraphs 0083, 0100, and 0111; obtain an image with a wider depth of field using figure 5 items L 1, L2, and L3 and also paragraphs 0065 - 0071 and 0106 - 0107 contrast processing).
Kagawa further discloses - an EDOF image generation unit, able to generate extended depth of field (DOF) image, obtaining and manipulating contrast information, for each pixel of the Near image, Mid image, and Far image, emphasis added, also selecting and combining pixels having highest contrast (paragraphs 0083, 0100, and 0111; obtain an image with a wider depth of field using figure 5 items L 1, L2, and L3 and also [0065 - 0071 and 0106 – 0107]).
c) Applicant argues a failure to disclose: “(i) a plurality of image pickup devices at different optical path lengths” [Remarks; page 11]; the Examiner respectfully disagrees because under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), consistent with the instant specification and the common knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art, at least Kagawa discloses imaging at different distances (e.g. optical path length L1, L2, L3) in Figs (2, 5); [Kagawa; 0009; 0012].
d) Applicant argues a failure to disclose: “(ii) generate simultaneous images focused at
different depths”; [Remarks; page 11], the Examiner respectfully disagrees because under the same (BRI), at least Kagawa discloses the implementation of auto focus processing for each of the region of interest (ROI) image used during procedure(s); [0105 – 0107],
e) Applicant argues a failure to disclose: “(iii) perform any of EDOF image compositing” [Remarks; page 11]); the Examiner respectfully disagrees because under the same (BRI) at least Kagawa discloses an EDOF image generation unit that generates extended depth of field (DOF) image obtained 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 (paragraphs 0083, 0100, and 0111; obtain an image with a wider depth of field using figure 5 items L 1, L2, and L3, contrast processing; [0065 - 0071 and 0106 -0107]).
f) Applicant argues that “Kagawa contains no surgery mode, no clinical procedure menu, and no concept of mode-dependent depth channel” [Remarks; page 12]; the Examiner respectfully disagrees because under the same (BRI) at least KAGAWA teaches a medical imaging system [0208] comprising: a surgery mode setting unit that sets a surgery mode [0037], emphasis added.
g) Applicant finally argues the failure to disclose “a unit that selects between cutting and coagulating waveforms” [Remarks; page 12]. This feature does not appear in neither the claims and/or the specs. Proper clarification is required.
However, and in the same regard; Shelton discloses the ability to detect, capture and analyze plurality of waveforms, and generate a spectral cube of images based on the molecular response to different wavelengths; [Shelton; 12: 52]
4.2. Finally, the Examiner undersigned considers that no allowable subject matter has been yet identified in the claims. The claims language lists instead a set of well-known feature techniques, commonly used in medical equipment’s and image processing field(s).
4.3. Regarding the rationale and motivation for the newly amended/added features/steps, please refer to the Rejection section (6) below.
.Finally, the Office considers Applicant's arguments not persuasive, as applied rejection on record as a whole reads on the claimed construction, establishing the "Prima Facie" case of equivalent disclosures, on the basis of a person of ordinary skills in the art would have recognized the similar elements shown, or the same structural similarities shown, wherein such structure/methodology performs the same identical functions in substantially the same way, able to produce the same identical results.
_ See [MPEP – 2183]. Making a Prima Facie Case of Equivalence).
_ See In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 833, 15 USPQ2d 1566]; …when similar structure applies;
_ See Kemco Sales, Inc. vs. Control Papers., 208 F.3d 1352, 54 USPQ2d 1308] …when identical functionality is specified in the claim, in substantially the same way.
Claim rejection section
35 USC § 112(b)
5. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112:
(B) The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
5.1. The newly amended independent claims and the correspondent dependencies, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as per the claims recite a new set of feature limitations [“a dynamic mode”], [“display option’s restrictions”], and [“pixel contrast restrictions”]; however, there is/are insufficient antecedent basis for the origination and/or functionality to be preform, associated in the claims/specs. More specifically, the claim amendments recite the following feature techniques:
_ selection of execute a dynamic mode-dependent switching that restricts display options; with no functional support found in the specs. In fact, the cited “dynamic mode” is not even mentioned in the specs. Proper correction/clarification is required moving forward.
_ “restrict” pixel contrast tracking to a subset of images – with no functional support in the specs provided, regarding how and what is “restricted” during image capture operations. In fact, the cited word “restrict” is not even mentioned in the specs. Proper correction and/or clarification is required moving forward.
5.2. See [MPEP 2173.02; …limitations/features in the claims should not been ambiguous, vague, incoherent, opaque, or otherwise unclear in describing and defining the claimed invention. If the claim language, (given its broadest reasonable interpretation) is such that a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art would read it with more than one reasonable interpretation, then a rejection under “35 U.S.C. 112 (b)” is appropriate.
35 USC § 103
6. 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.
6.1. 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.
6.2. Claims (1; 4; 8 -25) 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. (Currently Amended). The previous presented combination of Shelton/Kagawa discloses the invention substantially as claimed - A medical imaging system comprising: a surgery mode circuitry configured to:
execute logic configured to branch based on an operational mode set from a menu including at least a cataract surgery mode, a vitreous surgery mode, and a laparoscope mode setting unit that sets a surgery mode;
Shelton discloses - a surgery mode setting unit [42: 65], that sets a surgery mode via, (e.g. a setting module (602), Fig. 11), and step (4101) in Fig. 29, also able to supply and control different optical lengths (see optical filter; [14: 29 and 33: 40]), including different waveforms configurations (or range of waveforms (622)), depending of the required procedure; [21: 30; 30: 12]);
Kagawa analogously teaches a switch module (44), able to customize the required imaging configuration/parameters, based on the settled surgical procedures requirements; [Kagawa; 0108], including the distance settings, (also called “optical path length” from the image pickup objective lens 133 to the light receiving plane 13, as shown in at least Fig. 15; [Kagawa].
More specifically, Kagawa teaches - receive three images from each of three imaging elements disposed at positions having mutually different optical path lengths, wherein a first imaging element of the three imaging elements captures a Near image focused on a near point, a second imaging element of the three imaging elements captures a Mid image focused on a middle point, and a third imaging element of the three imaging elements captures a Far image focused on a far point; and (e.g. see 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, similarly being captured by three pieces of imaging elements having different optical path lengths from one imaging lens (figure 5 items L 1, L2, and L3); [Kagawa]);
selection processing unit that performs, on a basis of based on the surgery operational mode, (e.g. see construction of the image processing system in Figs (3, 7); [Kagawa];
selection of execute a dynamic mode-dependent switching that restricts display options and extended depth of field (EDOF) combination parameters; (e.g. see image processing architecture of the same in Figs. (3, 7), where a contrast detection (41) and contrast analysis (43) unit(s), feeding the display (21); [Kagawa; 0105]);
a display image (e.g. see system display (21), in Figs (3, 7), comprising settings options, able to simultaneously present different images formats (i.e. distance, focus, contrast, highest contrast, etc) in real time [Kagawa; 0012; 0066; 0068]);
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. two or more types of images captured by at least two pieces of imaging elements having different optical path lengths from one imaging lens (figures 2, 4 - 6, and 8); [Kagawa]);
and an extended depth of field (EDOF) image obtained by extending a depth of field by combining those images in response to the vitreous surgery mode being set, dynamically switch the EDOF combination parameters to restrict pixel contrast tracking to a subset of images consisting exclusively of the Mid image and the Far image, thereby isolating dual-focus depth view inside a vitreous body of an eyeball while tracking an entry instrument insertion portion outside the eyeball with the uncombined Near image. (e.g. an EDOF image generation unit that generates extended depth of field (DOF) image obtained 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, via endoscopic insertion-arm tracking procedure, Figs (1, 10); [0005], also selecting and combining pixels having highest contrast (paragraphs 0083, 0100, and 0111; obtain an image with a wider depth of field using figure 5 items L 1, L2, and L3, contrast processing; [0065 - 0071 and 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. - 3. (Cancelled).
Claim 4. (Currently Amended) Shelton/Kagawa discloses - The medical imaging system according to claim 1 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, (e.g. generates extended depth of field (DOF) image obtained 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 [0083, 0100, and 0111]; obtain an image with a wider depth of field using figure 5 items L 1, L2, and L3; [0065 - 0071 and 0106 – 0107]); the optical path lengths being from an imaging lens, 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. imaging at different distances (e.g. optical path length L1, L2, L3) in Figs (2, 5); [Kagawa; 0009; 0012]; the same motivation applies herein).
Claim 5. - 7. (Cancelled)
Claim 8. (Currently Amended) Shelton/Kagawa discloses - A medical imaging device comprising: surgery mode circuitry configured to: execute logic configured to branch based on an operational mode set from a menu including at least a cataract surgery mode, a vitreous surgery mode, and a laparoscope mode setting unit that sets a surgery mode;
receive three images from each of three imaging elements disposed at positions having mutually different optical path lengths, wherein a first imaging element of the three imaging elements captures a Near image focused on a near point, a second imaging element of the three imaging elements captures a Mid image focused on a middle point, and a third imaging element of the three imaging elements captures a Far image focused on a far point;
and a selection processing unit that performs, on a basis of based on the surgery operational mode, selection of execute a dynamic mode-dependent switching that restricts display options and extended depth of field (EDOF) combination parameters; and 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 in response to the vitreous surgery mode being set, dynamically switch the EDOF combination parameters to restrict pixel contrast tracking to a subset of images consisting exclusively of the Mid image and the Far image, thereby isolating dual-focus depth view inside a vitreous body of an eyeball while tracking an entry instrument insertion portion outside the eyeball with the uncombined Near image. (Current lists all the same elements as recite in Claim 1 above, but in “device form” instead, and is/are therefore on the same premise.)
Claim 9. (Currently Amended) Shelton/Kagawa discloses - A control method comprising, by a medical imaging system: setting a surgery mode; executing logic configured to branch based on a set surgery mode from a menu including at least a cataract surgery mode, a vitreous surgery mode, and a laparoscope mode; receiving three images from each of three imaging elements disposed at positions having mutually different optical path lengths, wherein a first imaging element of the three imaging elements captures a Near image focused on a near point, a second imaging element of the three imaging elements captures a Mid image focused on a middle point, and a third imaging element of the three imaging elements captures a Far image focused on a far point; and performing, on a basis of based on the surgery mode, selection of a dynamic switching of display options and extended depth of field (EDOF) combination parameters 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, wherein when the vitreous surgery mode is set, the dynamic switching restricts pixel contrast tracking to a subset of images consisting exclusively of the Mid image and the Far image, thereby isolating dual-focus depth view inside a vitreous body of an eyeball while tracking an entry instrument insertion portion outside the eyeball with the uncombined Near image. (Current lists all the same elements as recite in Claim 1 above, but in “Method control form” instead, and is/are therefore on the same premise.)
Claim 10. (New) Shelton/Kagawa discloses - The medical imaging system according to claim 1, wherein the surgery mode circuitry is further configured to, in response to the laparoscope mode being set, restrict display options (e.g. see display (21) options able to simultaneously present different images formats (i.e. distance, focus, etc) in real time [Kagawa; 0012; 0066]) to the Mid image and a laparoscope EDOF image generated by obtaining contrast for each pixel across the Near image, the Mid image, and the Far image and combining highest- contrast pixels, while setting the Mid image (e.g. an EDOF image generation unit that generates extended depth of field (DOF) image obtained 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, via endoscopic insertion-arm tracking procedure, Figs (1, 10); [0005], also selecting and combining pixels having highest contrast [0083, 0100, and 0111]; obtain an image with a wider depth of field using figure 5 items L 1, L2, L3, contrast processing; [Kagawa 0065 - 0071 and 0106 -0107]) as a base image for color-coded image generation; (e.g. see analogous color filter applications [0056]; color manipulation; [Kagawa; 0181]; the same motivation applies herein).
Claim 11. (New) Shelton/Kagawa discloses - The medical imaging system according to claim 1, wherein the surgery mode circuitry is further configured to generate a color-coded image (e.g. see analogous color filter applications [0056]; color manipulation; [Kagawa; 0181]); by setting one of the Near image, the Mid image, or the Far image as a base image, obtaining contrast for each pixel of the Near image, Mid image, and Far image, and superimposing on the base image a color corresponding to the image from which highest contrast is obtained for each pixel; (e.g. an EDOF image generation unit that generates extended depth of field (DOF) image obtained 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, via endoscopic insertion-arm tracking procedure, Figs (1, 10); [0005], also selecting and combining pixels having highest contrast [0083, 0100, and 0111]; obtain an image with a wider depth of field using figure 5 items L 1, L2, L3, contrast processing; [Kagawa 0065 - 0071 and 0106 -0107]; the same motivation applies herein).
Claim 12. (New) Shelton/Kagawa discloses - The medical imaging system according to claim 11, wherein, in response to the cataract surgery mode being set, the Mid image is set as the base image for the color-coded image; (e.g. a surgery mode setting unit, and observation mode switch for performing a switching operation between normal observation and special observation, and the like are included in the plurality of operation members; [Kagawa; 0037]; the same motivation applies herein).
Claim 13. (New) Shelton/Kagawa discloses - The medical imaging system according to claim 11, wherein, in response to the vitreous surgery mode being set, the Mid image is set as the base image for the color-coded image; (e.g. a surgery mode setting unit, and observation mode switch for performing a switching operation between normal observation and special observation, and the like are included in the plurality of operation members; [Kagawa; 0037]; the same motivation applies herein).
Claim 14. (New) Shelton/Kagawa discloses - The medical imaging system according to claim 1, wherein the surgery mode circuitry is further configured to receive a display image selection from a user via at least one of a foot pedal input and a voice input, and to output the selected display image to a display device without requiring manual focus adjustment; (e.g. application mode and other adjustment(s), may be provided with voice activation, AI applications, etc; [Shelton; 57: 30]. The system control circuit. may also suggest changing position, orientation, and/or roll angle to achieve desired perpendicularity, during operations; [Shelton; 49: 46].)
Claim 15. (New) Shelton/Kagawa discloses - The medical imaging system according to claim 1, wherein the surgery mode circuitry is further configured to perform EDOF processing on a first region of a displayed image using the Mid image and the Far image, while outputting the Mid image without EDOF processing on a second region of the displayed image corresponding to a center portion of the displayed image. (The same rational and motivation apply as given to Claims (1 and 4) above.)
Claim 16. (New) Shelton/Kagawa discloses - The medical imaging system according to claim 1, wherein the surgery mode circuitry is further configured to highlight, on a display device, at least one of the display image options based on a preset recommendation corresponding to the set operational mode; (e.g. see system display (21), in Figs (3, 7), comprising settings options, able to simultaneously present different images formats (i.e. distance, focus, etc) in real time [Kagawa; 0012; 0066]);
Claim 17. (New) Shelton/Kagawa discloses - The medical imaging system according to claim 1, wherein, in response to the cataract surgery mode being set, the surgery mode circuitry is further configured to populate all available display image options comprising the Near image, the Mid image, the Far image, and an EDOF image obtained by obtaining contrast for each pixel across all three captured images and combining highest-contrast pixels. (The same rational and motivation apply as given to Claims (1 and 4) above.)
Claim 18. (New) Shelton/Kagawa discloses - The medical imaging system according to claim 1, further comprising a single imaging lens assembly, wherein the three imaging elements are each disposed to receive light from the single imaging lens; (e.g. see similar optical construction in Figs (2, 4 -5) for light reception; [Kagawa]; the same motivation applies herein).
Claim 19. (New) Shelton/Kagawa discloses - The medical imaging system according to claim 18, further comprising an optical splitting system configured to split light received through the single imaging lens into three optical paths, wherein the three imaging elements are each disposed at a respective one of the three optical paths; (e.g. see similar optical construction in Figs (2, 4 -5) for light reception, including light splitters (82) as shown in Fig. 11; [Kagawa; 0174]; the same motivation applies herein).
Claim 20. (New) Shelton/Kagawa discloses - The medical imaging system according to claim 19, wherein the optical splitting system comprises at least one prism and at least one dichroic mirror; (e.g. see similar optical construction in Figs (2, 4 -5); [Kagawa]; the same motivation applies herein).
Claim 21. (New) Shelton/Kagawa discloses - The medical imaging system of claim 1, wherein the surgery mode circuitry is further configured to, based on the operational mode, select an EDOF use image from among: the Near image and the Mid image combined, the Mid image and the Far image combined, and the Near image, the Mid image, and the Far image combined. (The same rational and motivation apply as given to Claim1 above.)
Claim 22. (New) Shelton/Kagawa discloses - The medical imaging system of claim 4, wherein the difference in optical path length between the first imaging element and the second imaging element is within 5 mm, and the difference in optical path length between the first imaging element and the third imaging element is within 25 mm; (e.g. see similar distance adjustment in at least [Kagawa; 0060; 0071; 0082]; the same motivation applies herein).
Claim 23. (New) Shelton/Kagawa discloses - The medical imaging system according to claim 1, wherein the surgery mode circuitry is further configured to receive, from a user, a modification to the EDOF use images associated with the set operational mode, and to update the EDOF combination parameters based on the modification. (The same rational and motivation apply as given to Claims (1 and 4) above.)
Claim 24. (New) Shelton/Kagawa discloses - The medical imaging system according to claim 1, wherein the surgery mode circuitry is further configured to automatically set a default display image upon setting of the operational mode, wherein the default display image is determined based on the set operational mode. (The same rational and motivation apply as given to Claims (1 and 4) above. In addition, see a pre-defined default setting state in [Shelton; 30: 12].)
Claim 25. (New) Shelton/Kagawa discloses - The control method of claim 9, further comprising: when the laparoscope mode is set, restricting display options to the Mid image and an EDOF image combining the Near image, the Mid image, and the Far image, and setting the Mid image as a base image for color-coded image generation. (The same rational and motivation apply as given to Claims (1 and 4) above.)
‘
Prior Art Citations
7. The following List of prior art, made of record and not relied upon, is/are considered
pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
7.1. Patent Literature:
US 9,897,792 B2 Rout; et al. G06T5/50; G02B27/0081; H04N23/689;
US 10,691,201 B2 Olmo; et al. H04N 51268; G02B 27101; G06F 3/01;
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 12,355,935 B2 Takahashi; et al. G03B15/00; H04N7/18; H04N23/60;
US 11,154,179 B2 Kashima; et al. A61B1/00095; A61B1/00057; A61B1/00188;
US 12,471,753 B2 Kashima; et al. G02B5/3083; G02B23/2484; A61B1/00095;
US 12,114,833 B2 Kashima; et al. A61B1/00095; A61B1/00096; A61B1/00163;
US 20150309284 A1 Kagawa; et al. A61B1/00; G02B27/1066; A61B1/0005;
7.2. Non-Patent Literature:
_ 3D visualization and virtual simulation in solid tumors; Fuchs – 2005;
_ Extended depth of focus imaging; Zalevsky – 2010;
CONCLUSIONS
8. In view of the above Examiner’s considerations, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.1 36(a). See also See MPEP 5 706.07(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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
9. 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.
Prosecution Insights