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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because of a spelling defect. Term “PVOLTAGE” in box 91 in Figure 6 should be “VOLTAGE”. 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.
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.
Claims 1-12 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.
As to claim 1, term “the connected endoscope” lacks antecedent basis.
As to claim 2, terms “the endoscope [connected to the control device]” and “the control device” lack antecedent basis.
As to claim 3, term “the connected endoscope” (both occurrences) lacks antecedent basis. Furthermore, this claim attempts to further limit “the second endoscope”, whereas such “second endoscope” has only previously been mentioned functionally with respect to processor functioning, making it unclear whether the “second endoscope” is intended to be positively encompassed by the claimed apparatus. For purposes of applying prior art, language limiting a recited element will be construed as positively claiming such element as part of the apparatus.
As to claim 4, term “the connected endoscope” (both occurrences) lacks antecedent basis. In addition, it is not clear whether “setting information” (both occurrences) is referring back to one of the previously recited “first setting information” or “second setting information”, or is reciting a different “setting information” from those previously recited.
As to claim 5, term “the connected endoscope” lacks antecedent basis. Additionally, this claim attempts to further limit “the second endoscope”, whereas such “second endoscope” has only previously been mentioned functionally with respect to processor functioning, making it unclear whether the “second endoscope” is intended to be positively encompassed by the claimed apparatus. For purposes of applying prior art, language limiting a recited element will be construed as positively claiming such element as part of the apparatus.
As to claim 6, term “the connected endoscope” lacks antecedent basis.
As to claim 7, term “the connected endoscope” lacks antecedent basis.
As to claim 8, term “the connected endoscope” (both occurrences) lacks antecedent basis.
As to claim 9,
a) term “the connected endoscope” (both occurrences) lacks antecedent basis.
b) additionally, term “the second resistor of the connected endoscope” lacks antecedence basis and appears inaccurate. Previously in this claim, the “second resistor” is recited as being included in the medical image processing apparatus and not included in any endoscope.
c) additionally, this claim attempts to further limit “the first endoscope”, whereas such “first endoscope” has only previously been mentioned functionally with respect to processor configuration, making it unclear whether the “first endoscope” is intended to be positively encompassed by the claimed apparatus. For purposes of applying prior art, language limiting a recited element will be construed as positively claiming such element as part of the apparatus.
As to claim 10, term “the connected endoscope” lacks antecedent basis. Additionally, this claim attempts to further limit “the first endoscope”, whereas such “first endoscope” has only previously been mentioned functionally with respect to processor configuration, making it unclear whether the “first endoscope” is intended to be positively encompassed by the claimed apparatus. For purposes of applying prior art, language limiting a recited element will be construed as positively claiming such element as part of the apparatus.
As to claim 11, term “the connected endoscope” lacks antecedent basis. Additionally, this claim attempts to further limit “the first endoscope”, whereas such “first endoscope” has only previously been mentioned functionally with respect to processor configuration, making it unclear whether the “first endoscope” is intended to be positively encompassed by the claimed apparatus. For purposes of applying prior art, language limiting a recited element will be construed as positively claiming such element as part of the apparatus.
As to claim 12, this claim attempts to further limit “the first endoscope”, whereas such “first endoscope” has only previously been mentioned functionally with respect to processor configuration, making it unclear whether the “first endoscope” is intended to be positively encompassed by the claimed apparatus. For purposes of applying prior art, language limiting a recited element will be construed as positively claiming such element as part of the apparatus
Dependent claims inherit those defects.
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:
“processing module” in at least claims 1 and 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) 1-8, and 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Abe (US 2009/0251532).
As to claim 1, Abe discloses a medical image processing apparatus comprising:
a processing module (image processing board 4, Fig.1) configured to process image information acquired by an endoscope ([0029]); and
a processor (microcomputer 32, Fig.1) configured to control an operation of the processing module ([0029]),
wherein the processor is configured to change processing contents by the processing module based on a type of the connected endoscope (based on setting information from the connected scope, [0047]-[0049], processing contents are changed, [0052]).
As to claim 2, further comprising a memory (memory 37, Fig.1) corresponding to a specific endoscope, the memory being configured to store first setting information related to processing contents of the image information acquired by the specific endoscope by the processing module (setting information can be stored in memory 37, [0046]-[0047]), wherein the processor is configured to change the processing contents by the processing module to different processing contents depending on whether the endoscope connected to the control device is a first endoscope corresponding to the first setting information stored in the memory or a second endoscope not corresponding to the first setting information (changes processing contents based on connected scope, [0047]).
As to claim 3, wherein the second endoscope includes a second endoscope side memory (each endoscope will include a memory 24, Fig.1) configured to store second setting information regarding processing contents by the processing module of the image information acquired by the second endoscope (setting information stored in memory 24, [0024]), and the processor is configured to cause the processing module to execute processing based on the first setting information in a case where the connected endoscope is the first endoscope (Fig.2, microcomputer 32 controls processing contents, e.g. 411,412,413, Fig.2, [0030], according to setting information from connected scope,[0029],[0052]), and the processor is configured to cause the processing module to execute processing based on the second setting information stored in the second endoscope side memory in a case where the connected endoscope is the second endoscope (Fig.2, microcomputer 42 controls processing contents, e.g. 411,412,413, Fig.2, [0030], according to setting information from connected (e.g. second) scope,[0052]).
As to claim 4, further comprising an image memory (e.g. matrix conversion section 411, Fig.2) configured to store the image information (matrix conversion section receives and stores image signals, [0031]-[0033]), wherein the processing module (4) includes: a memory controller (microcomputer 42, Fig.2) including a first register (implicit: microcomputer receives and stores setting information from microcomputer 32, [0047]), and being configured to control writing of the image information to the image memory and reading of the image information from the image memory based on setting information stored in the first register (controls reading and writing of image signals into and out of matrix conversion section 411 based on setting information,[0030]-[0033]); and an image processing unit (image processing circuit 41, Fig.1) including a second register (multiplier 6, Fig.3) and being configured to perform image processing on the image information read by the memory controller based on setting information stored in the second register (applies coefficients for setting information to image signals, [0033]), and the processor is configured to store the first setting information in the first register and the second register in a case where the connected endoscope is the first endoscope (a first endoscope setting information are stored in areas (registers) in the processor, [0047],[0033], Fig.3), and store the second setting information in the first register and the second register in a case where the connected endoscope is the second endoscope (different endoscope setting information are stored in areas (registers) in the processor, [0047],[0033], according to a different endoscope being connected, [0047]-[0049]).
As to claim 5, wherein the second endoscope side memory (24) is configured to store second identification information indicative of the second endoscope (configured to store model number of scope, [0045],[0050]), and the processor is configured to determine whether the connected endoscope is the first endoscope or the second endoscope based on the second identification information ([0050]).
As to claim 6, wherein the second identification information is included in the second setting information (all information stored in association in memory 24), and the processor is configured to determine whether the connected endoscope is the first endoscope or the second endoscope based on the second identification information included in the second setting information ([0050]).
As to claim 7, wherein the second identification information is stored in the second endoscope side memory as information independent of the second setting information (although stored together, each element of information can be considered as “independent” elements), and the processor is configured to read the second setting information from the second endoscope side memory in a case of determining that the connected endoscope is the second endoscope based on the second identification information ([0050]).
As to claim 8, wherein the processor is configured to determine whether the connected endoscope is the first endoscope or the second endoscope based on a connector of the connected endoscope (each endoscope has a connector unit (not shown, [0023]), and based on connection of this connector unit to the apparatus, [0047], the endoscope can be determined, [0047],[0050]).
As to claim 11, wherein the first endoscope includes a first endoscope side memory (each endoscope includes memory 24) configured to store first identification information unique to the first endoscope (e.g. model number, [0050]), the memory is stored with each of the first identification information corresponding to a plurality of the first endoscopes in association with the first setting information of each of the plurality of first endoscopes (first setting information associated with each model number information, [0050]), and the processor is configured to cause the processing module to execute processing based on the first setting information associated with the first identification information of the first endoscopes in a case where the connected endoscope is the first endoscope ([0047]).
As to claim 12, wherein the first endoscope includes a connector unique to the first endoscope (each endoscope includes its own unique connector, [0023]), the memory is stored with connector information (model number information, [0050], constitutes “connector information” since each endoscope model will have an associated connector) indicating each of the connectors corresponding to a plurality of the first endoscopes in association with the first setting information of each of the plurality of first endoscopes (first setting information associated with each model number/connector information, [0050]), and the processor is configured to cause the processing module to execute processing based on the first setting information associated with the connector information indicating the connectors of the first endoscopes in a case where the connected endoscope is the first endoscope ([0047]).
As to claim 13, Abe discloses a control method executed by a processor of a medical image processing apparatus, the control method comprising:
causing the processor to change a processing content by a processing module configured to process image information acquired by an endoscope based on a type of the endoscope connected to the medical image processing apparatus (based on setting information from the connected scope, [0047]-[0049], processing contents are changed, [0052], by a processing module (image processing board 4, [0029]).
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) 9 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abe (US 2009/0251532) in view of Suzuki (US 2016/0165102).
As to claim 9, Abe, as set forth above with respect to claim 3, discloses that the first endoscope includes a memory (memory 24) having model number information stored as identifying information ([0045],[0050]) and thus fails to disclose other means for identifying an endoscope, including a first resistor unique to the first endoscope, wherein the medical image processing apparatus includes a second unique resistor, and the processor is configured to detect a voltage division ratio based on a resistance value of the first resistor and a resistance value of the second resistor of the connected endoscope, determine that the connected endoscope is the first endoscope in a case where the voltage division ratio is a known value, and determine that the connected endoscope is the second endoscope in a case where the voltage division ratio is not the known value. However, Suzuki, in a similar medical image processing apparatus wherein an endoscope/camera head (10/20) is identified when connected to a processor (30) in order provide the correct processing contents for the identified endoscope ([0051]-[0052],[0060]), teaches that, as an alternative to identifying the endoscope using a stored model number, a resistor having a resistor value can be disposed in the connected endoscope, and the type of endoscope can be determined by applying a voltage and measuring a voltage indicative of a voltage division ratio, (Suzuki: [0038]). It is noted that one of ordinary electrical skill would recognize that the voltage division ratio Vout/Vin is determined by (R2/(R2+R1), wherein R1 is a resistor value of the image processing apparatus placed in series with identifier resistance value R2 in the endoscope, Vin is a voltage applied across the resistors R1 and R2, and Vout is the measured voltage across the resistor R2. Thus, for each uniquely different identifier resistance value R2, there will be a corresponding uniquely different voltage ratio Vin/Vout, thus providing each endoscope with a different identifying voltage division ratio value. It is noted that use of this arrangement would require the image processor apparatus to include a resistor R1 with a known resistance value.
PNG
media_image1.png
394
748
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In view of the teaching of Suzuki, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have use an identifier arrangement involving the voltage division ratio, as set forth above with respect to Suzuki, as an obvious equivalent alternative identifying means to using an identifying model number, as taught by Suzuki ([0038]). One of ordinary skill would recognize that with such a modification, there would be a reasonable expectation of success.
As to claim 10, obvious modification of Abe in view of Suzuki, as set forth above with respect to claim 9, would provide for the first endoscope to include a first resistor unique to the first endoscope (e.g. R2, as mentioned above), the medical image processing apparatus includes a second resistor unique to the medical image processing apparatus (e.g. R1, as mentioned above), the memory is stored with a voltage division ratio based on a resistance value of each of the first resistors corresponding to a plurality of the first endoscopes and a resistance value of the second resistor in association with the first setting information of each of the plurality of first endoscopes (implicit: since the processor uses the identifier resistance value R2 in the endoscope to calculate a unique voltage division ratio value (Vout/Vin), this unique voltage division ratio value must be known in advance (stored in memory) in order to determine if it matches a value associated with a first endoscope), and the processor is configured to cause the processing module to execute processing based on the first setting information associated with the voltage division ratio based on the resistance value of the first resistor of the first endoscopes and the resistance value of the second resistor in a case where the connected endoscope is the first endoscope ([0050]-[0052]).
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See reference cited on the 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