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 .
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 11 is 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.
As to claim 11, term “optimizing” with respect to “tracking” is a relative term and thus is indefinite as to what one would consider as such tracking being “optimized”. For purposes of examination, this term will be interpreted as “being consistent with the efficiency of the feature currently being defined by the system” (i.e. current “tracking” being offered by the system is considered “optimal”).
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:
“gaze target extraction unit” in at least claims 1 and 19;
“gaze point information calculation unit” in at least claim 1 and 19;
“movable range determination unit” in at least claim 1 and 19;
“posture determination unit” in at least claim 1 and 19;
“arm control unit” in at least claim 1 and 19;
“presentation device” in at least claim 13;
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.
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 § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-13, 15-17, 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Itkowitz et al. (US 2017/0000574, hereinafter “Itkowitz”).
As to claims 1, 19 and 20, Itkowitz discloses a medical observation system/an information processing device/an information processing method comprising:
an endoscope (imaging device, [0040], e.g. endoscope 450, Fig.4B) that acquires a first operative field image (e.g. image of view space 350, Fig.4B);
an arm unit (not shown but mentioned as articulated arm connected to imaging device, [0040]) that supports and moves the endoscope (articulated arm commands and moves imaging device, [0040]);
a gaze target extraction unit (part of control unit 130, Fig.1, [0032]-[0034]) that extracts a gaze target from the first operative field image (targets, e.g. 412,414,416,432,434, are selected and extracted from images, [0048]-[0049]);
a gaze point information calculation unit (part of control unit 130, Fig.1, [0032]-[0034]) that calculates gaze point information related to a gaze point of the gaze target (information, e.g. positions/orientations of targets are calculated,[0037],[0051]);
a movable range determination unit (part of control unit 130, Fig.1, [0032]-[0034]) that determines, on the basis of the gaze point information, a movable range of the endoscope enabling cutout of a second operative field image including the gaze point from the first operative field image (as shown in Figs.3A,3B, target position information used to determine the range at which the endoscope needs to be moved (movable range, e.g. from 340 in Fig.3A to 350 in Fig.3B), which enables a second view space image 350, Fig.3B, of the selected targets, [0045]-[0047]);
a posture determination unit that determines posture information related to a position and a posture of the endoscope on the basis of the movable range (kinematics used to determine the position/orientation of endoscope, and if desired recentering move of endoscope is valid, i.e. fails to meet any movement constraints, [0039], sets movable range); and
an arm control unit (part of control unit 130, Fig.1, [0032]-[0034]) that controls the arm unit on the basis of the posture information (performs recentering move, [0039]).
As to claim 2, wherein the gaze point information calculation unit calculates a position of the gaze point as the gaze point information from multiple feature points constituting the gaze target (multiple targets, e.g. 412,414,416,432,434).
As to claim 3, wherein the gaze point information calculation unit calculates, as the gaze point information, a position of the gaze point and a requested gaze line vector based on the gaze point, from multiple feature points constituting the gaze target (each gaze target defined by a position of a center point of a virtual sphere and a radius (vector) from the center point, [0050]).
As to claim 4, wherein the gaze point information calculation unit calculates the position of the gaze point as the gaze point information on the basis of three-dimensional information of the multiple feature points (positions/orientations of targets are calculated,[0037],[0051], in three dimensional space, e.g. XYZ space, [0051]-[0053]).
As to claim 5, wherein the gaze point information calculation unit calculates the three-dimensional information of the multiple feature points on the basis of on-image position information and depth information of the multiple feature points ([0051]-[0053])
As to claim 6, wherein the gaze point information calculation unit detects the multiple feature points by instrument recognition processing or organ recognition processing (targets recognized in images, [0049]).
As to claim 7, wherein the gaze point information calculation unit detects the multiple feature points according to user designation (operator manually triggers request to recenter, [0035]).
As to claim 8, wherein the movable range determination unit determines the movable range on the basis of position information of a distal end of the endoscope and angle information of a cutout maximum oblique-viewing angle of the second operative field image based on a viewing angle of the endoscope, in addition to the gaze point information (view space 350 defined by angle information of the viewing angle of the endoscope, Fig.4b, additionally taken into consideration, [0053]-[0054]).
As to claim 9, wherein the movable range determination unit sets a virtual wall, which is a boundary of a region restricting a change in a position and a posture of the endoscope, on the basis of a boundary of the movable range (once recentered, view space 350, Fig.3B, forms a virtual wall boundary since further endoscope movement will not occur until the next recentering process occurs).
As to claim 10, wherein the movable range determination unit sets the virtual wall on the basis of an approach prohibition region that prohibits the endoscope from approaching the gaze point, in addition to the gaze point information (minimum viewing distance (i.e. closest in which the endoscope can approach) is additionally set, [0053]).
As to claim 11, wherein the posture determination unit determines a position and a posture of the endoscope optimizing tracking of the gaze target and cutout of the second operative field image on the basis of the gaze point information and the movable range (determination of position/posture of the endoscope, [0039], provides its own optimal tracking and cutout processes, [0045]-[0047], Fig.3B).
As to claim 12, wherein the posture determination unit determines a cutout range of the second operative field image in addition to the position and posture of the endoscope on the basis of the gaze point information and the movable range, and includes the determined cutout range in the posture information (gaze point information, e.g. calculated positions/orientations of targets,[0037],[0051], and endoscope position and posture, [0039], determines range at which the endoscope needs to be moved (movable range, e.g. from 340 in Fig.3A to 350 in Fig.3B), which enables a second view space image 350, Fig.3B, of the selected targets, [0045]-[0047]).
As to claim 13, further comprising a presentation device (display system 180, Fig.1) that presents the second operative field image ([0057]).
As to claim 15, wherein the gaze target extraction unit extracts multiple gaze targets from the first operative field image (as mentioned above with respect to claim 2), the gaze point information calculation unit calculates gaze point information related to the gaze point for each of the gaze targets (as mentioned above with respect to claim 3), and the movable range determination unit determines, on the basis of the gaze point information, the movable range enabling cutout of the second operative field image for each of the gaze targets from the first operative field image (as mentioned above with respect to claim 1).
As to claim 16, wherein the posture determination unit determines the posture information on the basis of the movable range (as mentioned above with respect to claim 1) according to a requested level of the gaze point for each of the gaze targets (gaze point information (target position information) used to determine movable range, as mentioned with respect to claim 1).
As to claim 17, wherein the gaze target extraction unit extracts multiple gaze targets from the first operative field image (as mentioned above with respect to claim 2), the gaze point information calculation unit calculates gaze point information related to the gaze point for each of the gaze targets (as mentioned above with respect to claim 3), and the movable range determination unit determines, on the basis of the gaze point information, the movable range enabling cutout of the second operative field image from the first operative field image for each of the gaze targets (as mentioned above with respect to claim 1).
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.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Itkowitz et al. (US 2017/0000574, hereinafter “Itkowitz”) in view of Mustufa et al. (US 2009/0326553, hereinafter “Mustufa”).
As to claim 14, Itkowitz, as set forth above with respect to claim 13, fails to disclose that the presentation device presents an image indicating that the endoscope exceeds the movable range in a case where the endoscope exceeds the movable range. Mustufa teaches, in a similar medical observation system involving articulating arms moving an endoscope and instruments (e.g. Figs.3,4), to provide the system with the ability to present an image on the presentation device (e.g. display screen 104, Fig.15) that indicates that the instrument/endoscope exceeds a movable range (Fig.15, highlighted image of endoscope to indicate a warning, [0075], such warning indicative of an undesirable event or condition, such a nearing or exceeding a limit of its range of motion, [0073]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided Itkowitz with the ability to indicate that the endoscope exceeds the movable range on the presentation device in order to provide the predictable result of desirably warning the user of an undesirable condition.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 18 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See references cited on PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN P LEUBECKER whose telephone number is (571)272-4769. The examiner can normally be reached Generally, M-F, 5:30-2:00.
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 T 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.
/JOHN P LEUBECKER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3795