DETAILED ACTION
Acknowledgements
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-20 are pending.
This action is Final.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because:
-Figure 3 contains text that is not all oriented in the same direction which is a requirement for Rule 1.84(p)(1)
-Figure 14 element ‘5000’ should not be underlined but have a lead line/arrow instead as set forth in Rules 1.84(p)(3),(q),(r).
-Figure 16 element ‘5300’ should not be underlined but have a lead line/arrow instead as set forth in Rules 1.84(p)(3),(q),(r).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: Figure 14 ‘5017’; Figure 15 ‘5065’; Figure 15 ‘5040’. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
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.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: the drawing elements and specification are not in agreement, see drawing objections above.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
a display device configured to in claims 18-19
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
Based on review of the disclosure as followed, the corresponding structures from the disclosure are:
a display device configured to in claims 18-19
-based on PGpub paragraph 57, such corresponding structures amount to LCD, EL and equivalents
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
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 of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 1 and 14, the limitations:
“a central processing unit (CPU) configured to:
detect, for each of the plurality of first pixels, an event corresponding to a luminance change that exceeds a predetermined specific threshold value based on the received light;
output event data asynchronously for each of the plurality of first pixels in response to detection of the luminance change exceeding the specific threshold value, the event data being generated independent of a frame rate; and
determine a bleeding portion in the body based on temporal accumulation of the event data and a change in a wavelength or an irradiation direction of the light source.” (emphasis added)
and for claim 20 similarly the limitations above and further in reference to the features:
“A medical information processing method, comprising: by a central processing unit (CPU) in a medical information processing apparatus…” (emphasis added)
are rejected for lack of adequate written description/new matter. The claimed products/method have been amended such that the structures claimed are a CPU (claim 1), a CPU and a light source (claim 14), and completion of steps by a CPU (claim 20). Applicant states that the amendments to the claims are supported by the as filed specification paragraphs 7-9, 62-66. However, after careful review, there is no express support, and it is not clear what aspects provide for inherent or implicit support for the scope being claimed of functional limitations that a CPU is configured to perform. First, the disclosure as filed does not use the term asynchronously in describing output by the CPU. Such amounts to a negative limitation in its simplest form, but the disclosures only reference to synchronous is in the limitation “At this time, the endoscope 5001 may transmit not only the pixel signal, but also simultaneously information (for example, a processing priority of the pixel signal and/or a synchronization signal) related to the pixel signal.”; but this is in reference to an endoscope and not a CPU and thus provides no basis for the claimed features. The second aspect is also addressed in the 112b section in what is actually being performed by the CPU with what data and where such is supported. As amended, the CPU is configured to output event data, but then this event data, which is output, is accumulated (memory?) and is then processed by the CPU which as addressed below is not clear in how such is performed by the required structures. It appears that a memory must be present for such accumulation and recall for further processing in order for the claimed functions be performed for the scope being claimed. As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would not have recognized applicant had possession of the claimed invention at the time the application was filed. The dependent claims are rejected for depending on a rejected claim.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 1 and 14, the limitations:
“a central processing unit (CPU) configured to:
detect, for each of the plurality of first pixels, an event corresponding to a luminance change that exceeds a predetermined specific threshold value based on the received light;
output event data asynchronously for each of the plurality of first pixels in response to detection of the luminance change exceeding the specific threshold value, the event data being generated independent of a frame rate; and
determine a bleeding portion in the body based on temporal accumulation of the event data and a change in a wavelength or an irradiation direction of the light source.” (emphasis added)
and for claim 20 similarly the limitations above and further in reference to the features:
“A medical information processing method, comprising: by a central processing unit (CPU) in a medical information processing apparatus…” (emphasis added)
are rejected for limitations which are unclear. It is not clear what is actually being performed by the CPU with what data. As amended, the CPU is configured to output event data, but then this event data, which is output, is accumulated (memory?) and is then processed by the CPU which is not clear in how such is performed by the required structures of only a CPU. It appears that a memory must be present for such accumulation and recall for further processing in order for the claimed functions be performed for the scope being claimed. As such, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear which renders the claim indefinite. The dependent claims are rejected for depending on a rejected claim.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s):
Claim 1:
detect, for each of the plurality of first pixels, an event corresponding to a luminance change that exceeds a specific threshold value based on the received light (mathematical concepts and/or mental processes in making determination by comparing data to thresholds)
determine a bleeding portion in the body based on temporal accumulation of the event data and a change in a wavelength or an irradiation direction of the light source (mathematical concepts and/or mental processes in making determination based on data)
Claim 14:
detect, for each of the plurality of first pixels, an event corresponding to a luminance change that exceeds a predetermined specific threshold value based on the received light (mathematical concepts and/or mental processes in making determination by comparing data to thresholds);
determine a bleeding portion in the body based on temporal accumulation of the event data and a change in a wavelength or an irradiation direction of the light source (mathematical concepts and/or mental processes in making determination based on data)
Claim 20:
detecting, for each of the plurality of first pixels, an event corresponding to a luminance change that exceeds a specific threshold value based on the received light;
determining a bleeding portion in the body based on temporal accumulation of the event data and a change in a wavelength or irradiation direction of the light source.
detecting a bleeding portion in a body based on a detection result (mental process, mathematical concepts using results from data gathered for such detecting)
These claim limitations fall within the identified groupings of abstract ideas:
Mathematical Concepts:
mathematical relationships
mathematical formulas or equations
mathematical calculations
Mental Processes
concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion)
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
Under the step 2A, analysis is conducted on the additional features of the claim. Under this analysis, the additional features beyond the judicial exception are:
Claim 1
a central processing unit (CPU) configured to (computer structures used as a tool):
receive event data from an event detection unit including a plurality of first pixels, wherein each of the plurality of first pixels receives light reflected in a body irradiated by a light source (extra solution activities with inferenced structures related to data gathering)
output event data asynchronously for each of the plurality of first pixels based on the detection of the luminance change that exceeds the specific threshold value, wherein the event data is generated independent of a frame rate (insignificant post solution activities of outputting data from a processing unit)
Claim 14
a light source (structures related to data gathering, insignificant extra solution details); and
a central processing unit (CPU) (computer structures used as a tool): configured to:
receive event data from an event detection unit including a plurality of first pixels, wherein each of the first pixels receives light reflected in a body irradiated by the light source (extra solution activities with inferenced structures related to data gathering);
output event data asynchronously for each of the plurality of first pixels in response to detection of the luminance change exceeding the specific threshold value, the event data being generated independent of a frame rate (insignificant post solution activities of outputting data from a processing unit);
Claim 20
a medical information processing method, comprising: by a central processing unit (CPU) in a medical information processing apparatus (computer structures used as a tool)::
receiving event data from an event detection unit including a plurality of first pixels, wherein each of the plurality of first pixels receives light reflected in a body irradiated by a light source (extra solution activities with inferenced structures related to data gathering);
outputting event data asynchronously for each of the plurality of first pixels based on the detection of the luminance change the exceeds the specific threshold value, wherein the event data is generated independent of a frame rate (insignificant post solution activities of outputting data from a processing unit)
These features in the claim do not integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception as the additional elements in the claim do not apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is no more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
Limitation concepts that are indicative of integration into a practical application:
Improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field - see MPEP 2106.05(a)
Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition – see Vanda Memo
Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine - see MPEP 2106.05(b)
Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing - see MPEP 2106.05(c)
Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception - see MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo
Limitation concepts that are not indicative of integration into a practical application:
Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f)
Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g)
Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h)
Under Step 2B, the claim limitations are evaluated for an inventive concept. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered separately and in combination, they do not add significantly more to the exception. Analyzing the additional claim limitations individually, the additional limitation that is not directed to the abstract idea are the same as those identified above in step 2A. Such limitations related to the data gathering including light source and pixels of image detection structures are known in endoscopy as being routine such as evidence from US20130169843, and in general such sensors are recognized by the courts as routine data gathering in order to input data to the mathematical algorithm/mental process, and thus, do not add a meaningful limitation to the method/product as it would be routinely used by those of ordinary skill in the art in order to apply the mathematical algorithm/mental process. The computer structures cited above are claimed as performing generic computer functions routinely used in computer applications. Generic computer components recited as performing generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities amount to no more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system. The additional limitations recited in the dependent claims are directed to further details of data processing (A more specific abstraction is still an abstraction). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. Therefore, analyzing the claims as an ordered combination under the Mayo/Alice analysis the features claimed are directed to patent ineligible limitations.
Response to Arguments
The Examiner acknowledges applicant’s submission of amendments to the claims, abstract, and drawings filed 4/8/2026.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the drawing objections have been fully considered but are not persuasive as the amendments only addressed the first objection raised and not the second set of objections, thus the objections are respectfully maintained. It is noted that the form presented was sufficient to overcome element 4 of this action, but element 5 was not directly addressed.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the specification objections have been fully considered but are not persuasive for the same reasons just explained in the drawing objections; the objections are respectfully maintained.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the claim interpretations have been fully considered and are partially persuasive due to the amendments to the claims; invocation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is updated as indicated above.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the rejections of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but are not persuasive for the form presented in the independent claims. The issue lies in the required structures as applicant argues that there is improvement in surgical environment, but how is a surgical environment improved by a Blackbox performing functions which cannot be practically realized in a surgical environment? For these reasons, the rejections are respectfully maintained as presented above to account for the amendments to the claims.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the rejections of the claims in view of prior art have been fully considered and are persuasive due to the amendments to the claims; the rejections are withdrawn for the scope claimed.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 MICHAEL R BLOCH whose telephone number is (571)270-3252. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 11-8 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, Robert (Tse) Chen can be reached at (571)272-3672. 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.
/MICHAEL R BLOCH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights