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 .
Disposition of Claims
Claims 1-10 are pending and rejected.
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 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 limitations are:
“an acquisition unit that acquires” in Claim 10, as described in Para. [0023] & [0039] of Applicant’s specification.
“an output unit that…outputs a recognition result” in Claim 10, as described in Paras. [0031] & [0032] of Applicant’s specification.
“a light amount adjusting unit that adjusts” in Claim 10, as described in Paras. [0023] & [0028] of Applicant’s specification.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they 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(b)
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 1-10 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 Claim 1, Claim 1 recite the limitation “a learning model learned to output a recognition result” on Lines 4-5. Claim 1 further recites the limitation “outputting a recognition result” on Line 6. It is unclear whether the “recognition result” of Line 6 is the same as the “recognition result” of Lines 4-5, or a separate, different “recognition result”. For the purpose of examination “outputting a recognition result” is being interpreted as “outputting the recognition result”.
Regarding Claim 3, Claim 3 recites the limitation “the likelihood” on Lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. For the purpose of examination, “the likelihood” is being interpreted as “a likelihood”.
Regarding Claim 3, Claim 1 recites the limitation “acquiring an image captured by an endoscope” on Line 3. Additionally, Claim 3 recites the limitation “an image including the region of interest” on Line 3. Further, Claim 3 recites the limitation “the image is being displayed” on Line 5. It is uncleared whether this displayed image is the “acquired/captured image” of Claim 1, the “region of interest image” of Claim 3, or a separate, different image. For the purpose of examination, “the image is being displayed” is being interpreted as “the acquired image is being displayed”.
Regarding Claim 4, Claim 4 recites the limitations “the acquired image is displayed, the image… [emphasis added]”, “outputting the image including the region of interest [emphasis added]” and “a screen on which the image is displayed [emphasis added]” on Lines 3-4, Lines 4-5 and Lines 5-6, respectively. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claims. For the purpose of examination, “the acquired image is displayed, the image…”, “outputting the image including the region of interest” and “a screen on which the image is displayed” are being interpreted as “the acquired image is displayed, the acquired image… [emphasis added]”, “outputting an ROI image including the region of interest [emphasis added]” and “a screen on which the acquired image is displayed [emphasis added]”, respectively.
Regarding Claim 4, Claim 4 recites the limitation “the likelihood” on Line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. For the purpose of examination, “the likelihood” is being interpreted as “a likelihood”.
Regarding Claim 4, Claim 4 recites the limitation “a screen on which the acquired image is displayed” on Line 3. Claim 4 further recites the limitation “a screen separate from a screen on which the image is displayed [emphasis added]” on Lines 5-6. It is unclear whether the “screen on which the image is displayed” is the same as the “a screen on which the acquired image is displayed” or a separate, different screen. For the purpose of examination, “a screen on which the acquired image is displayed” and “a screen separate from a screen on which the image is displayed” are being interested as “an acquired-image screen on which the acquired image is displayed” and “an ROI screen separate from the acquired-image screen on which the acquired image is displayed [emphasis added]”.
Regarding Claim 5, Claim 5 recites the limitation “the endoscope includes a plurality of LEDs” and “an LED corresponding to a position of the region of interest” on Lines 3 and Lines 4-5, respectively. It is unclear whether the “plurality of LEDs” includes the “LED provided at a distal tip”, previously recited on Line 7 of Claim 1, or a separate, different plurality of LEDs”. Further it is unclear whether the “LED corresponding to a position of the region of interest” is either one of the plurality of LEDs, the “LED provided at the distal tip”, or a separate, different LED. For the purpose of examination, “the endoscope includes a plurality of LEDs” and “an LED corresponding to a position of the region of interest” are being interpreted as “wherein the LED provided at the distal tip is one of a plurality of LEDs” and “an LED of the plurality of LEDs corresponding to a position of the region of interest”, respectively.
Regarding Claim 9, Claim 9 recite the limitation “a learning model learned to output a recognition result” on Lines 3-4. Claim 9 further recites the limitation “outputting a recognition result” on Line 5. It is unclear whether the “recognition result” of Line 5 is the same as the “recognition result” of Lines 3-4, or a separate, different “recognition result”. For the purpose of examination “outputting a recognition result” is being interpreted as “outputting the recognition result”.
Regarding Claim 10, Claim 10 recite the limitation “a learning model learned to output a recognition result” on Line 5. Claim 9 further recites the limitation “outputs a recognition result” on Line 6. It is unclear whether the “recognition result” of Line 6 is the same as the “recognition result” of Line 5, or a separate, different “recognition result”. For the purpose of examination “outputs a recognition result” is being interpreted as “outputs the recognition result”.
Regarding Claims 2 & 6-8, Claims 2 & 6-8 are rejected as being dependent upon claims previously rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b).
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.
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.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohara (US 2023/0005247) in view of Ooshima et al. (hereinafter "Ooshima") (US 2001/0000672).
Regarding Claim 1, Ohara discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium that stores an executable computer program for causing a computer to execute processing ([0037] & [0108]) comprising:
acquiring (Fig. 11, at S301; [0108]) an image (a detection target image; [0108]) captured by an endoscope (Fig. 2, 300; [0038]);
inputting (Fig. 11, at S302; [0109]), when the image captured by the endoscope is input, the image to a learning model (Fig. 7B, NN1; [0088]) learned to output a recognition result (detection result; [0109]) of a region of interest included in the image (region of interest; [0109]), and outputting (Fig. 11, at S303/S305; [0109] – [0111]) a recognition result ([0109] – [0111]); and
adjusting (Fig. 11, at S306; [0112]) a light amount (a parameter value wherein the parameter value is a light quantity ratio; [0063], [0068] & [0112]) with which an LED (Fig. 3, 352 wherein 352 is multiple LEDs; [0052] & [0068]) irradiates the region of interest ([0066]), on the basis of the recognition result ([0111] & [0112]).
Ohara fails to explicitly disclose wherein the LED is provided at a distal tip of the endoscope, instead using a light guide 315 to guide illumination from the LEDs 352 ([0054]).
However, Ooshima teaches an endoscope (Fig. 2, video scope; [0041]), comprising:
a distal tip (Fig. 2, a tip; [0042]); and
an LED (Fig. 2, 8; [0042]) provided at the distal tip ([0042]).
The advantage of distal LEDs is to reduce the light loss due to easily broken optical fibers (Ooshima; [0005]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to someone with ordinary skill in the art to replace the proximal LEDs and light guide as disclosed by Ohara, with the distal LEDs taught by Ooshima, to reduce the light loss due to easily broken optical fibers (Ooshima; [0005]).
Regarding Claim 2, Ohara, as previously modified by Ooshima, teaches the storage medium according to Claim 1. Ohara further discloses wherein the learning model outputs a likelihood (an estimated probability; [0109]) that the region of interest included in the image is a lesion ([0042]), and the processing includes adjusting the light amount when the likelihood is smaller than a predetermined value ([0101]).
Regarding Claim 3, Ohara, as previously modified by Ooshima, teaches the storage medium according to Claim 1. Ohara further discloses wherein the processing includes outputting an image including the region of interest (Fig. 11, S309; [0114]), when the likelihood that the region of interest is a lesion is smaller than a predetermined value ([0202]), on a screen (Fig. 13B; B6; [0146]) separate from a screen on which the image is displayed (Fig. 13B, B2; [0146]).
Regarding Claim 4, Ohara, as previously modified by Ooshima, teaches the storage medium according to Claim 1. Ohara further discloses wherein the processing includes switching, on a screen on which the acquired image is displayed, the image to an enlarged image obtained by enlarging the region of interest, or outputting (Fig. 11, S309; [0114]) the image including the region of interest on a screen (Fig. 13B; B6; [0146]) separate from a screen on which the image is displayed (Fig. 13B, B2; [0146]), when the likelihood that the region of interest is a lesion is equal to or larger than a predetermined value ([0114]).
Regarding Claim 5, Ohara, as previously modified by Ooshima, teaches the storage medium according to Claim 1. Ohara further discloses wherein the endoscope includes a plurality of LEDs (Fig. 3, 352 wherein 352 is multiple LEDs; [0052] & [0068]), and the processing includes adjusting a light amount emitted by an LED corresponding to a position of the region of interest ([0070]).
Regarding Claim 6, Ohara, as previously modified by Ooshima, teaches the storage medium according to Claim 1. Ohara further discloses wherein the processing includes receiving a change of a lower limit value or an upper limit value of the light amount with which the LED irradiates the region of interest ([0069]).
Regarding Claim 7, Ohara, as previously modified by Ooshima, teaches the storage medium according to Claim 1. Ohara further discloses wherein the processing includes:
acquiring a whiteness of the image ([0067]);
decreasing the light amount when the whiteness is equal to or larger than a reference value ([0067]); and
increasing the light amount when the whiteness is smaller than the reference value ([0067]).
Regarding Claim 8, Ohara, as previously modified by Ooshima, teaches the storage medium according to Claim 1. Ohara further discloses wherein the processing includes changing, when the region of interest is not included in an image acquired after the light amount is adjusted, the light amount to a light amount before adjustment ([0118]).
Regarding Claim 9, Ohara discloses an information processing method ([0108]), comprising:
acquiring an image captured by an endoscope (Fig. 11, S301; [0108]);
inputting, when the image captured by the endoscope is input, the image to a learning model learned to output a recognition result of a region of interest included in the image (Fig. 11, S302; [0109]),
outputting a recognition result, and acquiring the recognition result of the region of interest included in the image from the learning model (Fig. 11, S303/S305; [0109] – [0111]); and
adjusting a light amount with which an LED irradiates the region of interest, on the basis of the recognition result (Fig. 11, S306; [0112]).
Ohara fails to explicitly disclose wherein the LED is provided at a distal tip of the endoscope, instead using a light guide 315 to guide illumination from the LEDs 352 ([0054]).
However, Ooshima teaches an endoscope (Fig. 2, video scope; [0041]), comprising:
a distal tip (Fig. 2, a tip; [0042]); and
an LED (Fig. 2, 8; [0042]) provided at the distal tip ([0042]).
The advantage of distal LEDs is to reduce the light loss due to easily broken optical fibers (Ooshima; [0005]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to someone with ordinary skill in the art to replace the proximal LEDs and light guide as disclosed by Ohara, with the distal LEDs taught by Ooshima, to reduce the light loss due to easily broken optical fibers (Ooshima; [0005]).
Regarding Claim 10, Ohara discloses an endoscope (Fig. 2, 300; [0038]), comprising:
an LED (Fig. 3, 352 wherein 352 is multiple LEDs; [0052] & [0068]);
an acquisition unit (Fig. 3, 331; [0056]) that acquires an image captured by the endoscope ([0056]);
an output unit (Figs. 1 & 3, 120 comprising 334 and 335; [0056]) that inputs, when the image captured by the endoscope is input, the image to a learning model learned to output a recognition result of a region of interest included in the image, and outputs a recognition result ([0058] & [0109]); and
a light amount adjusting unit (Fig. 3, 332; [0066]) that adjusts a light amount with which the LED irradiates the region of interest ([0063] & [0068]), on the basis of the recognition result ([0111] & [0112]).
Ohara fails to explicitly disclose wherein the LED is provided at a distal tip.
However, Ooshima teaches an endoscope (Fig. 2, video scope; [0041]), comprising:
a distal tip (Fig. 2, a tip; [0042]); and
an LED (Fig. 2, 8; [0042]) provided at the distal tip ([0042]).
The advantage of distal LEDs is to reduce the light loss due to easily broken optical fibers (Ooshima; [0005]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to someone with ordinary skill in the art to replace the proximal LEDs and light guide as disclosed by Ohara, with the distal LEDs taught by Ooshima, to reduce the light loss due to easily broken optical fibers (Ooshima; [0005]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 2024/0046599; US 2023/0260117; US 2023/0230364; US 2023/0200626; US 2023/0029239; US 2021/0153730; US 2020/0345221; US 2020/0320702 and US 2020/0118274.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHEN FLOYD LONDON whose telephone number is (571)272-4478. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 10:00 am ET - 6:00pm ET.
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, MICHAEL CAREY 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.
/STEPHEN FLOYD LONDON/Examiner, Art Unit 3795
/MICHAEL J CAREY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3795