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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I (claims 1-18) and Species A (Figs.4-7, applying to claims 1-9 and 12-18) in the response of 9 December, 2026, is acknowledged. Claims 10-11 and 19-20 are withdrawn, and claims 1-9 and 12-18 are examined.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file. Accordingly, the benefit of foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) is obtained.
Specification
35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, requires the specification to be written in “full, clear, concise, and exact terms.” The specification is replete with terms which are not clear, concise and exact. The specification should be revised carefully in order to comply with 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112. Examples of some unclear or inexact terms used in the specification are:
“an image C”, “the image C”
While throughout the applicant’s disclosure this is referred to as a singular image, it appears from context that this is often a live video feed with multiple images, as the disclosed invention would be inoperable if this was a singular image. See in particular paragraphs 79 and 112-118. It appears that some instances of “image C” refer to a single image from the video feed being processed, and other instances of “image C” refer to a live video feed of images from the endoscope.
An irregularity of this importance and extent calls into question the translated English specifications in full. The examiner strongly suggests certified retranslation of the entire specification document, by a person fluent in both Japanese and English, and who is fully appraised of the technical subject matter.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
In claim 1, the claim reads that the processor is configured to “acquire a distance from a treatment tool to target” [line 5]. This can include determining the real-world distance from the nonpositively claimed treatment tool to the nonpositively claimed target, and may also include merely obtaining the image, as the image may provide an in-image distance between the objects in the image.
In regards to claim 1, the claim reads “acquire an operation state of the treatment tool” [line 6]. This is an unusually broad limitation, which may include simply obtaining an image with the tool in it.
In regards to claims 1, the claim reads “determines a necessity for zooming in and zooming out” [line 8]. Nothing is happening in this step as this flag is not being used to affect the real world. This is indistinguishable from setting an arbitrary flag, which is trivial calculation indistinguishable from finding the distance or operation state. As such, the processor being configured to perform this step is not further limiting.
The recitation of this limitation in claims 5 is interpreted in the same way.
In regards to claim 2, the claim reads “perform zoom-in control to enlarge a size of a target in the image displayed on a display” and “perform zoom-out control to reduce the size of the target in the image displayed on the display”. As this is one singular image obtained by the endoscope (see the related 112 (b) rejections of claims 2-3 hereinbelow), this is interpreted as manipulation of that singular image for display.
In regards to claim 4, the claim reads “perform the zoom-in control or the zoom-out control while keeping a specific point in the image present the image [lines 2-4]. Note that in claim 1 only one image is obtained. As such this step may occur by not deleting or modifying the image.
In regards to claim 5, the claim reads “determine a treatment phase on the basis of the image” [line 3]. Nothing is happening in this step as this flag is not being used to affect the real world. This is indistinguishable from setting an arbitrary flag, which is trivial calculation indistinguishable from obtaining the image. As such, the processor being configured to perform this step is not further limiting.
In regards to claim 6, the claim reads “detect a type of the treatment tool in the image” [line 3]. Nothing is happening in this step as this is indistinguishable from obtaining the image, which the processor is configured to do in antecedent claim 1. As such, the processor being configured to perform this step is not further limiting.
In regards to claim 6, the claim reads “determine the treatment phase on the basis of the type of the treatment tool” [lines 4-5]. Nothing is happening in this step as this flag is not being used to affect the real world. This is indistinguishable from setting an arbitrary flag, which is trivial calculation indistinguishable from obtaining the image. As such, the processor being configured to perform this step is not further limiting.
In regards to claim 7, the claim reads “detect the type of a predetermined target treatment tool in the image” [lines 2-3]. Nothing is happening in this step as this is indistinguishable from obtaining the image, which the processor is configured to do in antecedent claim 1. As such, the processor being configured to perform this step is not further limiting.
In regards to claim 8, the claim reads “determine that the treatment phase is a stretching phase” [lines 3-4]. Nothing is happening in this step as this flag is not being used to affect the real world. This is indistinguishable from setting an arbitrary flag, which is trivial calculation indistinguishable from obtaining the image. As such, the processor being configured to perform this step is not further limiting. Note in particular the applicant has not set forth different operations to be performed based on these phases.
In regards to claim 9, the claim reads “wherein the operation state includes at least one of an open/closed state and a grasping state of the grasping forceps” [lines 1-3]. The applicant has not positively claimed the forceps. As such, these are only different possible titles of flags set by the processor, the claim only requiring at least one flag. Nothing is happening in this step as this flag is not being used to affect the real world. This is indistinguishable from setting an arbitrary flag, which is trivial calculation indistinguishable from obtaining the image, which the processor is configured to do in antecedent claim 1. As such, the processor being configured to perform this step is not further limiting.
In regards to claim 12, the claim reads “determine that zooming in is necessary if the acquired distance is less than or equal to a predetermined threshold” [lines 2-4]. As applicant has not set forth an alternative for when the distance is outside this range, and as this flag is not being used to affect the real world, nothing is happening in this step. This is indistinguishable from setting an arbitrary flag, which is trivial calculation indistinguishable from obtaining the distance from a treatment tool to target, which the processor is configured to do in antecedent claim 1. As such, the processor being configured to perform this step is not further limiting.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1, 5-9 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Each of claims 1, 5-9 and 12 have been analyzed to determine whether it is directed to any judicial exceptions:
Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Claims 1, 5-9 and 12 are directed to a machine, and thus meet the requirements for step 1.
Step 2A, Prong 1: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Each of Claims 1, 5-9 and 12 recites at least one step or instruction for analysis, which is grouped as a mental process under the 2019 PEG or a certain method of organizing human activity under the 2019 PEG. The claimed limitations involve analysis with insignificant extra-solution activity. Accordingly, each of Claims 1, 5-9 and 12 recites an abstract idea.
Specifically, Claim 1 recites
“An endoscope system comprising: an endoscope configured to acquire an image; and
at least one processor comprising hardware, the at least one processor being configured to:
acquire a distance from a treatment tool to target;
acquire an operation state of the treatment tool; and
determine a necessity for zooming in and zooming out on the basis of at least one of the distance and the operation state.
Receiving information and determination (observation, judgement or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process under the 2019 PEG).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Therefore, claim 1 recites an abstract idea of a mental process.
Further, dependent claims 5-9 and 12 merely include limitations that amount to no more than additional abstract ideas that are receiving information and determination.
Step 2A, Prong 2
The above-identified abstract idea in independent Claim 1 (and its dependent Claims 5-9 and 12) is not integrated into a practical application under 2019 PEG because the additional elements (bolded above in independent Claim 1), either alone or in combination, generally link the use of the above-identified abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Specifically, the additional element: endoscope is generically recited hardware in claim 1 which does not provide improvement in the functioning of endoscopes or any other technology or technical field. Nor does this above-identified additional element serve to apply the above-identified abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine, effect a transformation or apply or use the above-identified abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use thereof to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. Furthermore, the above-identified additional element does not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because it amount to simply implementing the abstract idea together with an imaging device. For at least these reasons, the abstract idea identified above in independent Claim 1 (and dependent claims) is not integrated into a practical application under 2019 PEG.
Specifically, the additional element: processor is a generically recited computer element in Claims 1, 5-8 and 12 which does not improve the functioning of a computer, or any other technology or technical field. Nor does this above-identified additional element serve to apply the above-identified abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine, effect a transformation or apply or use the above-identified abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use thereof to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. Furthermore, the above-identified additional element does not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because it amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. For at least these reasons, the abstract idea identified above in independent Claim 1 (and dependent claims) is not integrated into a practical application under 2019 PEG.
Moreover, the above-identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application under 2019 PEG because the claimed method merely implements the above-identified abstract idea (e.g., mental process and certain method of organizing human activity) using rules (e.g., computer instructions) executed by a computer (e.g., processor as claimed). In other words, these claims are merely directed to an abstract idea with additional generic computer elements which do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. Additionally, Applicant’s specification does not include any discussion of how the claimed invention provides a technical improvement realized by these claims over the prior art or any explanation of a technical problem having an unconventional technical solution that is expressed in these claims. That is, like Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC, the specification fails to provide sufficient details regarding the manner in which the claimed invention accomplishes any technical improvement or solution. Thus, for these additional reasons, the abstract idea identified above in independent Claim 1 (and dependent claims) is not integrated into a practical application under the 2019 PEG.
Accordingly, Claims 1, 5-9 and 12 are directed to an abstract idea under 2019 PEG.
Step 2B
None of Claims 1, 5-9 and 12 include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea for at least the following reasons.
These claims require the additional elements of: processor and endoscope.
The above-identified additional elements are a generically claimed computer component which enable the above-identified abstract idea(s) to be conducted by performing the basic functions of automating mental tasks. The courts have recognized such computer functions as well understood, routine, and conventional functions when claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. See, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc. , 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); and OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93.
Per Applicant’s specification, processor is described as processor 5a, Fig.2, para.13 which is a black-box schematic further described as “a dedicated logic circuit, hardware, or the like, such as a field programmable gate array (FPGA), a system-on-a-chip (SoC), an application specific integrated circuit (ASIC), or a programmable logic device (PLD).”
Accordingly, in light of Applicant’s specification, the claimed term processor is reasonably construed as a generic device. Like SAP America vs Investpic, LLC (Federal Circuit 2018), it is clear, from the claims themselves and the specification, that these limitations require no improved computer resources, just already available devices, with their already available basic functions, to use as tools in executing the claimed process.
Per Applicant’s specification, endoscope is described as endoscope 2, Figs.1-2, drawn as a black-box schematic with an imaging device and a zoom lens, or as a rectangle attached to robot arm, further described in terms having generic CCD or CMOS sensors, for example, or in terms of accepting control from the processor.
Accordingly, in light of Applicant’s specification, the claimed term endoscope is reasonably construed as a generic device. Like SAP America vs Investpic, LLC (Federal Circuit 2018), it is clear, from the claims themselves and the specification, that these limitations require no improved computer resources, just already available devices, with their already available basic functions, to use as tools in executing the claimed process.
Furthermore, Applicant’s specification does not describe any special programming or algorithms required for the processor or endoscope. This lack of disclosure is acceptable under 35 U.S.C. §112(a) since this hardware performs non-specialized functions known by those of ordinary skill in the computer arts. By omitting any specialized programming or algorithms, Applicant's specification essentially admits that this hardware is conventional and performs well understood, routine and conventional activities in the computer industry or arts. In other words, Applicant’s specification demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the above-identified additional elements because it describes these additional elements in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) (see Berkheimer memo from April 19, 2018, (III)(A)(1) on page 3). Adding hardware that performs “‘well understood, routine, conventional activit[ies]’ previously known to the industry” will not make claims patent-eligible (TLI Communications).
The recitation of the above-identified additional limitations in Claims 5-9 and 12 amounts to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer. Simply using a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); and TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Moreover, implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer, does not add significantly more, similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer.
A claim that purports to improve computer capabilities or to improve an existing technology may provide significantly more. McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1101-02 (Fed. Cir. 2016); and Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1688-89 (Fed. Cir. 2016). However, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification for any assertion that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes. That is, the disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. Here, Applicant’s specification does not include any discussion of how the claimed invention provides a technical improvement realized by these claims over the prior art or any explanation of a technical problem having an unconventional technical solution that is expressed in these claims. Instead, as in Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC 838 F.3d 1253, 1263-64, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207-08 (Fed. Cir. 2016), the specification fails to provide sufficient details regarding the manner in which the claimed invention accomplishes any technical improvement or solution.
For at least the above reasons, the device of claims 1, 5-9 and 12 is directed to applying an abstract idea (e.g., mental process or certain method of organizing human activity) on a general purpose computer without (i) improving the performance of the computer itself (as in McRO, Bascom and Enfish), or (ii) providing a technical solution to a problem in a technical field (as in DDR). In other words, none of Claims 1, 5-9 and 12 provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that these claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Taking the additional elements individually and in combination, the additional elements do not provide significantly more. Specifically, when viewed individually, the above-identified additional elements in independent Claim 1 (and dependent claims) do not add significantly more because they are simply an attempt to limit the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. That is, neither the general computer elements nor any other additional element adds meaningful limitations to the abstract idea because these additional elements represent insignificant extra-solution activity. When viewed as a combination, these above-identified additional elements simply instruct the practitioner to implement the claimed functions with well-understood, routine and conventional activity specified at a high level of generality in a particular technological environment. As such, there is no inventive concept sufficient to transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible application. As such, the above-identified additional element, when viewed as whole, do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Thus, Claims 1, 5-9 and 12 merely apply an abstract idea to a computer and do not (i) improve the performance of the computer itself (as in Bascom and Enfish), or (ii) provide a technical solution to a problem in a technical field (as in DDR).
Therefore, none of the Claims 1, 5-9 and 12 amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Accordingly, Claims 1, 5-9 and 12 are not patent eligible and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to abstract ideas implemented on a generic computer in view of the Supreme Court Decision in Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al. and 2019 PEG.
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 2-4 and 13-18 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
In regards to claim 2, the claim reads “the image displayed on a display” [line 8]. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Therefore, the claim is unclear. For the purposes of prosecution, it will be assumed this is a newly recited item in the claim.
This is assumed to require that the processor is configured to display the image of claim 1 on a display.
In regards to claim 3, the claim reads “the zoom-in control and the zoom-out control are performed by controlling at least one of the position of the endoscope, an optical magnification of the endoscope, and a digital magnification of the image”.
Only one image is obtained in antecedent claim 1. In antecedent claim 2, zoom-in control and zoom-out control enlarge or shrink at least part of this one image on a display. While the applicant discloses the other two choices (also see the objection to the specifications hereinabove), this is claimed such that of the three, only digital magnification of the one image can be performed to effect zoom. The inclusion of two invalid choices makes the limitation unclear. Therefore the claim is unclear.
For the purposes of prosecution, it will be assumed this requires the zoom-in control and the zoom-out control are performed by controlling a digital magnification of the image.
The applicant should amend the claims to discuss multiple images obtained at different times to overcome this lack of clarity.
In regards to claims 14 and 17, the claims read “the distance from the endoscope” [line 3]. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. Therefore, the claims are unclear. For the purposes of prosecution, it will be assumed this is a newly recited item in the claims.
In regards to claim 15, the claim reads “the area of the treatment tool” [line 3]. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Therefore, the claim is unclear. For the purposes of prosecution, it will be assumed this is a newly recited item in the claim.
In regards to claim 15, the claim reads “the area of the treatment tool in the image” [line 3]. Here, it is unclear if this is the area of the treatment tool in the image relative to the area of the image itself prior to manipulation, or the area of the treatment tool in the image to be displayed on the display. Therefore, the claim is unclear. For the purposes of prosecution, it will be assumed the latter is the case.
In regards to claim 18, the claim reads “the area of the target” [line 3]. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Therefore, the claim is unclear. For the purposes of prosecution, it will be assumed this is a newly recited item in the claim.
In regards to claim 18, the claim reads “the area of the target” [line 3]. Here, it is unclear if this is the area of the target in the image relative to the area of the image itself prior to manipulation, or the area of the target in the image to be displayed on the display. Therefore, the claim is unclear. For the purposes of prosecution, it will be assumed the latter is the case.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), fourth paragraph:
Subject to the [fifth paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA )], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 5-9 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
In regards to claims 5-9 and 12, these claims require the processor be configured to perform setting of flags or other steps which are indistinguishable from merely obtaining information from sensors, where the processor was set forth to be configured to obtain this sensor information already in antecedent claim 1. As such, the processor, and hence the overall device, is not further limited in these claims.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claims 1, 5-9 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Gombert et al. (US 2016/0199140).
In regards to Claim 1, Gombert discloses an endoscope system comprising:
an endoscope [7, Fig.1, para.35, 37] configured to acquire an image; and
at least one processor [15, 20, Fig.1, para.13, 38, 52-54] comprising hardware, the at least one processor being configured to:
acquire a distance from a treatment tool to target [para.52, from the endoscope to the target, or in the alternative, a distance in pixels between a target and a tool in the image];
acquire an operation state of the treatment tool [para.52, or in the alternative this is equivalent to receiving an image with the tool in it]; and
determine a necessity for zooming in and zooming out on the basis of at least one of the distance and the operation state [para.53-54, or in the alternative, as seen above in the claim interpretation section, this is equivalent to an arbitrary flag with no real-world effects.].
In regards to claim 5, Gombert discloses the endoscope system according to Claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to:
determine a treatment phase on the basis of the image; and
determine the necessity for zooming in and zooming out by sequentially determining the distance and the operation state in accordance with the determined treatment phase [See the above rejection under 112 (d). Gombert at least discloses this by the rejection of claim 1.].
In regards to claim 6, Gombert discloses the endoscope system according to Claim 5, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to:
detect a type of the treatment tool in the image; and
determine the treatment phase on the basis of the type of the treatment tool [See the above rejection under 112 (d). Gombert at least discloses this by the rejection of claim 1.].
In regards to claim 7, Gombert discloses the endoscope system according to Claim 6, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to detect the type of a predetermined target treatment tool in the image [See the above rejection under 112 (d). Gombert at least discloses this by the rejection of claim 1.].
In regards to claim 8, Gombert discloses the endoscope system according to Claim 6, wherein, if the type of the treatment tool is a grasping forceps, the at least one processor is configured to determine that the treatment phase is a stretching phase [See the above rejection under 112 (d). Gombert at least discloses this by the rejection of claim 1.].
In regards to claim 9, Gombert discloses the endoscope system according to Claim 8, wherein the operation state includes at least one of an open/closed state and a grasping state of the grasping forceps [See the above rejection under 112 (d). Gombert at least discloses this by the rejection of claim 1.].
In regards to claim 12, Gombert discloses the endoscope system according to Claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is configured to determine that zooming in is necessary if the acquired distance is less than or equal to a predetermined threshold [See the above rejection under 112 (d). Gombert at least discloses this by the rejection of claim 1.].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-4 and 13-18 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 112, 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: The prior art fails to teach, among other features, an endoscope system comprising:
an endoscope configured to acquire an image,
an articulated robot arm configured to change one or more of a position and orientation of the endoscope, and
a processor configured to
obtain a distance from a treatment tool to a target,
obtain an operation state of the treatment tool,
potentially set a zoom in or zoom out flag on the basis of at least one of the distance and the operation state,
display the image on a display,
if the zoom in flag is set, the processor will enlarge a size of the target in the displayed image,
if the zoom out flag is set, the processor will shrink the size of the target in the displayed image.
Kudo et al. (US 5,836,869) discloses an endoscope system configured to automatically track tools and features of interest within a field of view, and automatically move the endoscope to center them in a field of view, as well as having manual zoom features and displaying several sizes of the same image simultaneously.
Gattani et al. (US 2008/0108873) discloses an endoscope system with automatic digital zoom onto features of interest.
Gombert et al. (US 2016/0199140) discloses the above except for that the zoom is changed within the same single displayed image.
There is no reason or suggestion provided in the prior art to modify the above prior art to teach the limitations as claimed above, and the only reason to modify the references would be based on Applicant's disclosure, which is impermissible hindsight reasoning.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kudo et al. (US 5,836,869)
Gattani et al. (US 2008/008873)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AARON B FAIRCHILD whose telephone number is (571)270-5276. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30am-5pm Monday-Friday.
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.
/AARON B FAIRCHILD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3795