DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/22/2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 limitations use 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 limitations are: “adjustment unit that” in claim 1, “drive unit that” in claim 13 and “information processing apparatus” in claim 14.
Because these claim limitations 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 these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid 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 limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid 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 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 15 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.
Claim 15 recites two instances of “the imaging unit” in lines 3 and 5, respectively and an instance of “an imaging unit” in line 7. It is unclear if the claim is directed to more than one imaging unit or a single imaging unit. If the claim is directed one imaging unit, change the first instance of “the imaging unit” in line 3 to “an imaging unit” and change the instance of “an imaging unit” in line 7 to “the imaging unit”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Claims 1-3, 5, 10, 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Singh et al. (Pub. No.: 2012/0300033) in view of Hicks (Pub. No.: US 2019/0045173) and further in view of Harris (Pub. No.: US 2016/0143519).
Consider claims 1, 15, Singh discloses a medical observation system (paragraph [0034], Fig. 1, 3D image shooting apparatus includes an endoscope 101 and a controller 102) including:
a first imaging unit (paragraph [0034], Fig. 1, image sensor 110) that includes a plurality of pixels (paragraph [0064], pixels of the image sensor 110) each of which having a photosensitive cell (i.e., photodiode) generating, by photoelectric conversion, an electrical/pixel signal representing the quantity of the light received (paragraphs [0048], Figs. 4A, 4B) and acquires an image of an environment in an abdominal cavity of a living body (paragraph [0073], acquiring an image of the stomach wall);
a polarizing filter (Fig. 1, incoming light transmitting section 120) disposed on an optical path of the incident light incident on the first imaging unit (paragraph [0041], Fig. 1, light returning from the object passes through an incoming light transmitting section 120, and then produces an image on the image sensor wherein incoming light transmitting section 120 comprises a polarization filter, see paragraph [0043], Fig. 3).
Singh does not specifically disclose the plurality of pixels each of which detects a change in luminance of incident light as an event.
Hicks discloses the plurality of pixels each of which detects a change in luminance of incident light as an event (paragraph [0029], detects and indicates events at pixels of the sensor as pixel(s) change (e.g., due to illumination intensity change at the pixel)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the plurality of pixels as disclosed by Singh with the pixels of the dynamic vision/image sensor as taught by Hicks, in order to offer high dynamic range since photodiode capacitance does not place a constraint during operation (Hicks, paragraph [0029]).
The combination of Singh and Hicks does not specifically disclose an adjustment unit that adjusts luminance of the incident light incident on the first imaging unit by adjusting luminance of light transmitted through the polarizing filter based on the image acquired by the first imaging unit.
Harris discloses an adjustment unit (paragraph [0034], Fig. 2B, adjustment mechanism 255) that adjusts luminance of the incident light incident on the first imaging unit by adjusting luminance of light transmitted through the polarizing filter based on the image acquired by the first imaging unit (paragraph [0030], Fig. 2B, reflected polarized light may pass through a second polarizing filter 250 wherein adjustment mechanism 255 rotatably adjust the second polarization filter 250 to alter the polarity of the received reflected light delivered to sensor 260).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide an adjustment unit for adjusting, as taught by Harris, the luminance of light transmitted through the polarizing filter as disclosed by the combination of Singh and Hicks in order to alter the polarity of the received reflected light that passes through the polarizing filter (Harris, paragraph [0030]).
Consider claim 14, Singh discloses an information processing apparatus including a program causing a computer to execute processing (paragraph [0011], computer program) an imaging unit (paragraph [0034], Fig. 1, image sensor 110) including a plurality of pixels each of which having a photosensitive cell (i.e., photodiode) generating, by photoelectric conversion, an electrical/pixel signal representing the quantity of the light received (paragraphs [0048], Figs. 4A, 4B),
a polarizing filter (Fig. 1, incoming light transmitting section 120) and acquires an image of an environment in an abdominal cavity of a living body (paragraph [0073], acquiring an image of the stomach wall);
Singh does not specifically disclose the plurality of pixels each of which detects a change in luminance of incident light as an event.
Hicks discloses the plurality of pixels each of which detects a change in luminance of incident light as an event (paragraph [0029], detects and indicates events at pixels of the sensor as pixel(s) change (e.g., due to illumination intensity change at the pixel)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the plurality of pixels as disclosed by Singh with the pixels of the dynamic vision/image sensor as taught by Hicks, in order to offer high dynamic range since photodiode capacitance does not place a constraint during operation (Hicks, paragraph [0029]).
The combination of Singh and Hicks does not specifically disclose wherein the program causes the computer to execute processing of adjusting luminance of the incident light incident on the imaging unit by adjusting luminance of light transmitted through a polarizing filter disposed on an optical path of incident light incident on the imaging unit based on an image of an environment in an abdominal cavity of a living body acquired by the imaging unit.
Harris discloses wherein the program causes the computer to execute processing of adjusting luminance of the incident light incident on the imaging unit by adjusting luminance of light transmitted through a polarizing filter disposed on an optical path of incident light incident on the imaging unit based on an image of an environment in an abdominal cavity of a living body acquired by the imaging unit (paragraph [0030], Fig. 2B, reflected polarized light may pass through a second polarizing filter 250 wherein adjustment mechanism 255 rotatably adjust the second polarization filter 250 to alter the polarity of the received reflected light delivered to sensor 260).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide an adjustment unit for adjusting, as taught by Harris, the luminance of light transmitted through the polarizing filter as disclosed by the combination of Singh and Hicks in order to alter the polarity of the received reflected light that passes through the polarizing filter (Harris, paragraph [0030]).
Consider claim 2, the combination of Singh and Hicks does not specifically disclose wherein the polarizing filter is a linear polarizer that selectively transmits a linearly polarized component.
Harris discloses wherein the polarizing filter is a linear polarizer that selectively transmits a linearly polarized component (paragraph [0034], the polarizing filter may be a linear polarizing filter).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the polarizing filter as disclosed by the combination of Singh and Hicks with the linear polarizing filter as taught by Harris to provide an output beam which is linearly polarized along the preferred axis (Harris, paragraph [0034]).
Consider claim 3, the combination of Singh and Hicks does not specifically disclose wherein the adjustment unit adjusts luminance of light transmitted through the polarizing filter by rotating the polarizing filter around an optical axis of the incident light.
Harris discloses wherein the adjustment unit adjusts luminance of light transmitted through the polarizing filter by rotating the polarizing filter around an optical axis of the incident light (paragraph [0038], adjustment mechanism 255 may manually rotate the second polarizing filter 250 about the center axis of otoscope 201 with respect to the objective of lens 260).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide an adjustment unit that adjust, by rotating the polarizing filter around an optical axis of the incident light, as taught by Harris, the luminance of light transmitted through the polarizing filter as disclosed by the combination of Singh and Hicks to allow a user to select a preferable level of polarization (Harris, paragraph [0038]).
Consider claim 5, the combination of Singh and Hicks does not specifically disclose a rotator disposed on a side opposite to the first imaging unit across the polarizing filter on an optical path of the incident light,
wherein the adjustment unit adjusts luminance of light transmitted through the polarizing filter by rotating the rotator around an optical axis of the incident light.
Harris discloses a rotator (paragraph [0030], Figs. 2A, 2B, adjustment mechanism 255) disposed on a side opposite to the first imaging unit (paragraph [0030], Figs. 2A, 2B, sensor 260) across the polarizing filter on an optical path of the incident light (paragraph [0030], Fig. 2B, reflected polarized light may travel in path 237 passing through a second polarizing filter 250),
wherein the adjustment unit adjusts luminance of light transmitted through the polarizing filter by rotating the rotator around an optical axis of the incident light (paragraph [0038], adjustment mechanism 255 may manually rotate the second polarizing filter 250 about the center axis of otoscope 201 with respect to the objective of lens 260).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide an adjustment unit that adjust, by rotating the polarizing filter around an optical axis of the incident light, as taught by Harris, the luminance of light transmitted through the polarizing filter as disclosed by the combination of Singh and Hicks to allow a user to select a preferable level of polarization (Harris, paragraph [0038]).
Consider claim 10, the combination of Singh, Hicks, and Harris discloses a light source device that illuminates the abdominal cavity (Singh, paragraph [0080], Fig. 1, white non-polarized light that has been emitted from the light source 104 irradiates the object wherein the object is the stomach wall, see paragraph [0073]).
Consider claim 13, the combination of Singh and Harris does not specifically disclose a drive unit that moves the first imaging unit in a direction perpendicular to an optical axis of the incident light.
Hicks discloses a drive unit that moves the first imaging unit in a direction perpendicular to an optical axis of the incident light (paragraph [0052], Fig. 4, lens 401 may be moveable).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a drive unit that moves, as taught by Hicks, the first imaging unit disclosed by the combination of Singh and Harris to focus illumination onto dynamic vision sensor (Hicks, paragraph [0052]).
Claims 4 and 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Singh, Hicks, and Harris in view of Shirokawa et al. (Pub. No.: US 2021/0063310).
Consider claim 4, the combination of Singh, Hicks, and Harris does not specifically disclose wherein the polarizing filter is a linear polarizer that changes a polarization direction of transmitted light in accordance with an applied voltage, and
the adjustment unit adjusts luminance of light transmitted through the polarizing filter by adjusting a voltage to be applied to the polarizing filter.
Shirokawa discloses wherein the polarizing filter is a linear polarizer that changes a polarization direction of transmitted light in accordance with an applied voltage (paragraph [0057], Fig. 1, the polarization adjuster 121, controlled by applied voltage, transmits light polarized linearly in the direction parallel or perpendicular to the polarization direction of the excitation light wherein the polarization adjuster can also be a polarizing filter), and
the adjustment unit adjusts luminance of light transmitted through the polarizing filter by adjusting a voltage to be applied to the polarizing filter (paragraph [0057], polarization adjuster 121, controlled by applied voltage, transmits only a specific linear polarization component of the fluorescence wherein the polarization adjuster can also be a polarizing filter).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the adjustment unit as disclosed by the combination of Singh, Hicks, and Harris to apply a voltage to the polarizing filter as taught by Shirokawa in order to acquire polarization information of a subject (Shirokawa, paragraph [0057]).
Consider claim 6, the combination of Singh and Hicks does not specifically disclose a rotator disposed on a side opposite to the first imaging unit across the polarizing filter on an optical path of the incident light.
Harris discloses a rotator (paragraph [0030], Figs. 2A, 2B, adjustment mechanism 255) disposed on a side opposite to the first imaging unit (paragraph [0030], Figs. 2A, 2B, sensor 260) across the polarizing filter on an optical path of the incident light (paragraph [0030], Fig. 2B, reflected polarized light may travel in path 237 passing through a second polarizing filter 250).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide for a side opposite to the first imaging unit as disclosed by the combination of Singh and Hicks to be disposed with a rotator as taught by Harris to alter the polarity of the received reflected light (Harris, paragraph [0030]).
The combination of Singh, Hicks, and Harris does not specifically disclose wherein the adjustment unit adjusts luminance of light transmitted through the polarizing filter by adjusting a voltage to be applied to the rotator.
Shirokawa discloses wherein the adjustment unit adjusts luminance of light transmitted through the polarizing filter adjusting a voltage to be applied to the rotator (paragraph [0057], polarization adjuster 121, controlled by applied voltage, transmits only a specific linear polarization component of the fluorescence wherein the linearly polarized light is rotated, see paragraph [0072]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the adjustment unit as disclosed by the combination of Singh, Hicks, and Harris to apply a voltage to the rotator as taught by Shirokawa in order to acquire polarization information of a subject (Shirokawa, paragraph [0057]).
Claims 7, 11, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Singh, Hicks, and Harris in view of Duckett (Pub. No.: EP 3 824 792).
Consider claim 7, the combination of Singh, Hicks, and Harris does not specifically disclose wherein the adjustment unit constructs relation between an angle around the optical axis of the polarizing filter and luminance of the incident light based on a change in luminance of the incident light incident on the first imaging unit at a time when the polarizing filter is rotated around an optical axis of the incident light, and adjusts luminance of light transmitted through the polarizing filter such that luminance of the incident light incident on the first imaging unit is minimized based on the relation that has been constructed.
Duckett discloses wherein the adjustment unit (paragraph [0028], Fig. 1, polarization control element 109) constructs relation between an angle around the optical axis of the polarizing filter (paragraph [0040], Fig. 3, polarizing filter 310) and luminance of the incident light based on a change in luminance of the incident light incident on the first imaging unit (paragraph [0034], Fig. 2, beamsplitter 110 constructed of prisms, including a right-angle prism and triangular prism by which the image light received from the polarization control element 109 is split with a first portion passing straight through along first optical path 301 and a second portion reflected upward along second optical path 302) at a time when the polarizing filter is rotated around an optical axis of the incident light, and adjusts luminance of light transmitted through the polarizing filter such that luminance of the incident light incident on the first imaging unit is minimized based on the relation that has been constructed (paragraph [0028], polarization control element 109 may be a rotating polarizer which in operation is rotated to vary the relative intensity of the two portions of light produced by beamsplitter 110).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the adjustment unit disclosed by the combination of Singh, Hicks, and Harris with the polarization control element as taught by Duckett to vary the polarization properties of the image light over time (Duckett, paragraph [0028].
Consider claim 11, the combination of Singh, Hicks, and Harris a second imaging unit that acquires an image of an environment in the abdominal cavity (Hicks, paragraph [0043], Fig. 2, a second dynamic vision camera (DVC) 201).
The combination of Singh, Hicks, and Harris further discloses a beam splitter (Harris, paragraph [0035], beam splitter).
The combination of Singh, Hicks, and Harris does not specifically disclose a beam splitter that is disposed between the polarizing filter and the first imaging unit on an optical path of the incident light and that splits light transmitted through the polarizing filter into light incident on the first imaging unit and light incident on the second imaging unit.
Duckett discloses a beam splitter (paragraph [0027], Fig. 2, beamsplitter 110) that is disposed between the polarizing filter (Fig. 3, polarizing filter 310 mounted in polarization control element 300 (or polarization control element 109, Fig. 2)) and the first imaging unit (paragraph [0032], Fig. 2, image sensor 216) on an optical path of the incident light and that splits light transmitted through the polarizing filter into light incident on the first imaging unit and light incident on the second imaging unit (paragraph [0007], beamsplitter and focus the first portion as a first image onto a first image sensor and focus the second portion as a second image onto a second image sensor).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the beam splitter as disclosed by the combination of Singh, Hicks, and Harris with the beam splitter taught by Duckett to provide a beamsplitter optically arranged to receive single optical image light in an afocal state and split the single optical image into a first portion of light directed along a first optical path and a second portion of light directed along a second optical path (Duckett, paragraph [0007]).
Consider claim 12, the combination of Singh, Hicks, Harris, and Duckett discloses a display device that displays the image acquired by the second imaging unit (Hicks, paragraph [0076], Fig. 14, device 1400 may include dynamic vision camera 104 and dynamic vision camera 201, wherein device 1400 may include a display port 1403 to transmit image data for presentment to a user via a display (not shown)).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8 and 9 are 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.
Regarding claim 8, the prior art of record fails to disclose when determining that adjustment is impossible, adjusts luminance of light transmitted through the polarizing filter by causing the arm control device to control the arm portion.
Regarding claim 9, a difference between maximum luminance and minimum luminance of the incident light incident on the first imaging unit.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Nagao et al. (Pub. No.: WO 2020/196338) discloses a medical arm system.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GERALD JOHNSON whose telephone number is (571)270-7685. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm 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, Carey Michael can be reached at (571)270-7235. 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.
/Gerald Johnson/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3797