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 2/13/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-3, 5-19, are pending.
Claims 4, 20-26 are cancelled. Applicant’s amendment to the claims have overcome 112
rejections previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action notified on 11/20/2025.
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, 4-19, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wolf (US 20150313444) in view of Sargent (US 20210082092).
Regarding claim 1, Wolf teaches ureteroscope (FIG. 1) system comprising:
a ureteroscope (Working channel 48; urethral tube 28; FIG. 1) configured for insertion into a urinary tract of a patient body, the ureteroscope comprising:
an elongate flexible shaft (endoscope 26; Working channel 48; FIG. 1), and a camera (imaging array 54; FIG. 2) disposed at a distal end of the shaft; and
an image processing module (processor 16; FIG. 1) operatively coupled with the ureteroscope, the image processing module comprising a console including one or more processors (Processor in the operating system 10; FIG. 1) and a non- transitory computer-readable medium having stored thereon logic (Processor 16) that, when executed by the one or more processors, is configured to perform operations comprising:
receiving imaging data including a first image (An image of the scene captured by the endoscope is generated by imaging module 20, using illuminator 50 and array 54. Para [0049]), wherein the first image includes a plurality of objects including a first subset of the plurality of objects (Images are captured during fragmentation; lithotripsy and imaging simultaneously performed; FIG. 2; Para [0052]; Fragments 30A, 30B, 30C and stone 30 is imaged; Para [0053]) that obstructs visibility of one or more objects of a second subset of the plurality of objects (Part of stone 30 is obstructed by the fragments 30A-30C; Para [0053]) and wherein the first subset of the plurality of objects and the one or more objects of the second subset include fragments of a kidney stone (30A, 30B, 30C are fragments of kidney stone; Stone 30 is a kidney stone.).
Wolf is silent regarding generating a second image including the second subset of the plurality of objects in a visibly unobstructed view, and causing rendering of the first image or the second image on a display.
Sargent is directed to computer program product and computer system for image artifact removal (abstract) and teaches generating a second image including the second subset of the plurality of objects in a visibly unobstructed view (Note the marked local artifacts 162 in FIGS. 1c, 1d; Module 154 removes local artifacts from an image; FIG. 1d reproduced below; Para [0035]-[0036]), and causing rendering of the first image or the second image on a display (displaying the information to the user on user device 120; Para [0028]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wolf to generate an image that includes objects that are visually unobstructed by the fragments/artifacts by removing fragments or local artifacts from a medical in accordance with the teaching of Sargent so that unobstructed image could be generated and used during surgery. For example, unobstructed image of FIG. 5 of Wolf could be produced by removing fragments (90, 92) or artifacts from FIG. 5 in accordance with the teaching of Sargent.
PNG
media_image1.png
660
1237
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Wolf as modified, teaches wherein the operations further comprise causing the rendering of the second image (Sargent: Removing fragments or local artifacts from a medical and displaying in a user device 120.) on the display.
Regarding claim 4, Wolf discloses wherein the objects include fragments of a kidney stone (stone 30; Para [041]).
Regarding claim 5, Wolf as modified, teaches wherein the operations further comprise removing (Sargent: removing fragments or local artifacts from a medical and displaying in a user device 120.) the first subset from the first image to define the second image.
Regarding claim 6, Wolf as modified, teaches wherein: the second subset includes objects that are persistent (Sargent: Artifacts are persistent. FIG. 1d) within the first image, and the first subset (Wolf: Images are captured during fragmentation; Para [0052]; Fragments 30A, 30B, 30C and stone 30 is imaged; Para [0053]; Therefore, these images are transient when the image is generated during fragmentation.) includes objects that are transient within the first image.
Regarding claim 7, Wolf discloses wherein the operations further comprise tracking the locations of one or more objects within the first image or the second image (Processing and displaying a track of a movement of at least one of the stone or the one or more fragments. Para [0014]).
Regarding claim 8, Wolf discloses wherein the operations further comprise defining a tracking image overlay, the tracking image overlay (Overlay of fragments and stones are formed; Para [0076]) including tracking indicia (Display tracks 197A, 197B, and 197C of the first, second, and third fragments; FIG. 13; Para [0081]) associated with the tracked objects.
Regarding claim 9, Wolf discloses wherein the operations further comprise causing rendering of the tracking image overlay on top of the first image (Overlay of fragments and stones are formed; Para [0076]) including tracking indicia (Display tracks 197A, 197B, and 197C of the first, second, and third fragments; FIG. 13; Para [0081]) or the second image on the display.
Regarding claim 10, Wolf discloses wherein the operations further comprise identifying circumferential edges (For each image the processor generates line segments 130, 132, and 134 and uses the lengths of the segments as respective parameters indicative of the size of the fragments. Para [0061]; Centroids are identified; FIGS. 6-7; Para [0057]) of one or more objects within the first image or the second image.
Regarding claim 11, Wolf as modified, teaches wherein: the operations further comprise defining an edge-highlighting image overlay, and the circumferential edges are highlighted in the edge-highlighting image overlay (Sargent: In FIG. 1c, the edge is distinct and highlighted.).
Regarding claim 12, Wolf as modified, teaches wherein the operations further comprise causing rendering of the edge-highlighting image overlay on top of the first image or the second image on the display (Sargent: In FIG. 1c, the edge is distinct and highlighted.).
Regarding claim 13, Wolf discloses wherein the operations further comprise defining sizes (For each image the processor generates line segments 130, 132, and 134 and uses the lengths of the segments as respective parameters indicative of the size of the fragments. Para [0061]) of one or more objects within the first image or the second image, the size defined by an area enclosed by the circumferential edge (The size is defined by the area; Images 120, 122, and 124 of the three fragments 30A, 30B, and 30C are the defined the areas enclosed in the circumferential edge. FIG. 6).
Regarding claim 14, Wolf discloses wherein: the operations further comprise defining a sizing image overlay, the sizing image overlay including size indicia associated with the sized objects (Each shape of images 120, 122, and 124 of the three fragments are indicia. FIG. 6), and each size indicium provides a visual indication of the respective size of the object.
Regarding claim 15, Wolf discloses wherein the operations further comprise causing rendering of the sizing overlay on top of the first image or the second image on the display (The image of the fragments is displayed on the image of the stone, the image of the scene is captured by the image sensor; FIGS. 2, 6).
Regarding claim 17, Wolf discloses wherein the operations further comprise defining maximum lengths of one or more objects within the first image or the second image, each maximum length defined by a maximum distance between two points of the circumferential edge of the respective object (For each image, the processor generates line segments 130, 132, and 134 and uses the lengths of the segments as respective parameters indicative of the size of the fragments. Para [0061]).
Regarding claim 18, Wolf discloses wherein the operations further comprise defining a length image overlay, the length overlay including a line indicium visually representing each respective maximum length (Overlay of fragments and stones are formed; Para [0076]) including tracking indicia (Display tracks 197A, 197B, and 197C of the first, second, and third fragments; FIG. 13; Para [0081]; For each image the processor generates line segments 130, 132, and 134 and uses the lengths of the segments as respective parameters indicative of the size of the fragments. Para [0061]).
Regarding claim 19, Wolf discloses wherein the operations further comprise causing rendering of the length image overlay on top of the first image (For each image the processor generates line segments 130, 132, and 134 and uses the lengths of the segments as respective parameters indicative of the size of the fragments. Para [0061]) or the second image on the display.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over wolf (US 20150313444) in view of Sargent (US 20210082092) and further in view of Chen (US 20210150706).
Regarding claim 3, Wolf does not expressly disclose wherein: the imaging data comprises video imaging data, and the first and second images comprise video images.
Chen is directed to systems and methods for processing electronic images from a medical device (abstract) and teaches wherein: the imaging data comprises video imaging data, and the first and second images comprise video images (FIGS. 2-3; Para [0021], [0025]).
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 Wolf to provide a video image in the display in accordance with the teaching of Chen so that convenience could be provided during monitoring by way of providing video image.
Response to Arguments
Applicant' s arguments filed 2/13/2026 have been fully considered. In view of amendment, a new rejection has been made.
Sargent teaches a module 154 that can remove marked local artifacts 162 from an image and displays in a user device 120. See FIGS. 1c, 1d; Para [0028], [0035]- [0036].
See rejection set forth above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 16
Claim 16 is 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.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowable subject matter:
The prior art of record fails to explicitly teach or fairly suggest, alone or in combination, a ureteroscope system, wherein the operations further comprise: comparing each calculated area with an area limit stored in the non-transitory computer- readable medium, and modifying the size indicium if the respective calculated area exceeds the area limit, along with the remaining features of claims 15, 14, 13, 10, and 1.
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
/ANH TUAN T NGUYEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3795
3/16/26