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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendments to claims 1-7, 13-18 and 20 in the response filed on 25 June, 2026 are acknowledged.
Claims 1-20 remain pending in the application.
Claims 10-11 and 19-20 are withdrawn.
Claims 1-9 and 12-18 are examined.
Response to Arguments
Argument:
In regards to the claim interpretation in the office action of 25 March, 2026, the applicant argues “As amended, the claims are directed to processing image data acquired from an endoscope during surgery. In this technical context, "acquir[ing] a distance from a treatment tool to target" and "acquir[ing] an operation state of the treatment tool" are not mental observations, but machine-implemented technical operations performed on endoscopic image data and/or sensor information. Likewise, "determin[ing] a necessity for zooming in and zooming out" is not an arbitrary label, but a machine control determination generated from the acquired technical inputs.
These limitations define part of a real-time control architecture for an endoscope system. Even in claim 1, the at least one processor is not merely reporting information; rather, it is configured to derive control-relevant information from surgical image data for use in zoom control of the endoscope system. Thus, the recited at least one processor operations are substantive technical limitations, not mere insignificant data gathering or arbitrary flag setting” [in the applicant's arguments dated 25 June, 2026, page 8 lines 12-23].
Response:
The examiner respectfully disagrees.
If these are to exceed mental observations, they must be provided in greater detail, and given more than titles. A title such as “necessity for zooming in and zooming out” is an arbitrary label until the flag is employed, like it is in claim 2.
As such, this argument is found to be unconvincing.
Argument:
In regards to the 35 USC 101 rejections of the office action of 25 March, 2026, applicant’s representative argues that claim 1 passes Step 2A, Prong One, as Claim 1 recites a specific endoscope system, and recites steps that cannot be practically performed in the human mind.
Applicant further argues that claim 1 passes Step 2A, Prong Two, as Claim 1 determines when zoom control should be invoked, hence integrates any alleged abstract idea into a practical application [in the applicant's arguments dated 25 June, 2026, page 9 lines 12-31].
Response:
The examiner respectfully disagrees.
In regards to the Prong One argument, claim 1 recites “an endoscope configured to acquire image data”. This is a generic endoscope. The steps performed by the processor are “acquire a distance from a treatment tool to a target”: a simple measurement, “acquire an operation state of the treatment tool”: a very broad category that can include simply observing the presence of a tool, and “determine a necessity for zooming in and zooming out on the basis of at least one of the distance and operation state”: setting a flag with an arbitrary title. In regards to the last, even if claim 2 was brought in and the step made substantial, it would still be a trivial mental step.
In regards to the Prong Two argument, claim 1 does not determine “when zoom control should be invoked”. It sets an arbitrary flag absolutely disconnected from implementation, that is actually titled “a necessity for zooming in and zooming out”.
As such, this argument is found to be unconvincing.
Argument:
In regards to the 112 (d) rejections, the applicant argues that:
For claim 5, the applicant argues that since determining necessity for zooming in and out is conditional on the determination of treatment phase of claim 5, this further limits claim 1.
For claims 6-9, claim 5 is further narrowed by steps that are asserted to not be restatements of acquiring image information, as they are asserted to be classifications.
For claim 12, claim 1 is further limited by a threshold barrier being required for the necessity of zooming determination [in the applicant's arguments dated 25 June, 2026, page 13 lines 6-21].
Response:
The examiner respectfully disagrees.
For claim 5, if the determination of treatment phase is of such breadth that it cannot be distinguished from receiving the image data, then it is not an additional condition.
For claims 6-9, if the classifications are of such breadth that they cannot be distinguished from receiving the image data, then they are not further narrowing.
For claim 12, if no alternative is provided for both sides of a conditional, then the conditional is not further narrowing. Here, claim 12 only indicates what happens if the acquired distance is less than or equal to a predetermined threshold. This means the same outcome may occur above the threshold, meaning the claim is not further limiting.
Therefore, this argument is found to be unconvincing.
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) - Gombert et al. (US 2016/0199140)
Argument:
In regards to claim 1, applicant argues that Gombert does not disclose “acquire a distance from a treatment tool to target” as Gombert only acquires distance from an object to the camera [in the applicant's arguments dated 25 June, 2026, page 14 lines 12-16].
Response:
The examiner respectfully disagrees.
The endoscope may be considered a treatment tool. Further, the applicant has not defined “distance” here, and it may include a distance in pixels in the image data between a target and another treatment tool in the image data.
As such, this argument is found to be unconvincing.
Argument:
In regards to claim 1, applicant argues that Gombert does not disclose “acquire an operation state of the treatment tool” as in the application, the operation state refers to a functional state of the treatment tool, such as open/closed state, grasping state, or other state information relevant to the surgical task [in the applicant's arguments dated 25 June, 2026, page 14 lines 17-21].
Response:
The examiner respectfully disagrees.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., a functional state of the treatment tool, such as open/closed state, grasping state, or other state information relevant to the surgical task) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
The applicant does not provide a strict definition of the term “operation state” in the initial disclosure. As such, this disclosed material is not recited in the claim.
As such, this argument is found to be unconvincing.
The applicant provides other arguments that depend on the above arguments for validity. As such, these are also found to be unconvincing.
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:
“image data C”
The use of this term does not make sense in some contexts in the amended disclosure submitted 6/25/2026.
For example, in paragraph 10, it is invoked as both a single image and several separate images (“An objective lens of the endoscope 2 may include a zoom lens 2b that optically enlarges or reduces a subject in the image data C.” In paragraph 31, it is invoked as a single image (“the current image data C”). The problem is almost exactly the same as with the previously submitted disclosure of 2/21/2024.
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. The examiner previously suggested this in the office action of 3/25/2026.
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 data, as the image may provide an in-image distance between the objects in the image data.
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]. This is indistinguishable from setting an arbitrary flag, and indistinguishable from merely replicating the distance or operation state parameter unchanged. As such, the processor being configured to perform this step is not further limiting.
Further, this flag being titled “a necessity for zooming in and zooming out” is without impact or meaning.
In regards to claim 2, the claim reads “perform zoom-in control to enlarge a size of a target in the image data displayed on a display” and “perform zoom-out control to reduce the size of the target in the image data displayed on the display”. As this is the already displayed image data, this is interpreted as manipulation of the individual image on display.
In regards to claim 5, the claim reads “determine a treatment phase on the basis of the image data” [line 3]. This is indistinguishable from setting an arbitrary flag, which is trivial calculation indistinguishable from obtaining the image data or forwarding the image data unchanged. As such, the processor being configured to perform this step is not further limiting.
Further, this flag being titled “treatment phase” is without impact or meaning.
In regards to claim 6, the claim reads “detect a type of the treatment tool in the image data” [line 3]. Nothing is happening in this step as this is indistinguishable from obtaining the image data, 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]. This is indistinguishable from setting an arbitrary flag, which is trivial calculation indistinguishable from obtaining the image data. As such, the processor being configured to perform this step is not further limiting.
Further, this flag being titled “treatment phase” is without impact or meaning.
In regards to claim 7, the claim reads “detect the type of a predetermined target treatment tool in the image data” [lines 2-3]. Nothing is happening in this step as this is indistinguishable from obtaining the image data, 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]. This is indistinguishable from setting an arbitrary flag, which is trivial calculation indistinguishable from obtaining the image data. 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]. This is indistinguishable from setting an arbitrary flag, which is trivial calculation indistinguishable from obtaining the image data, 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 what happens if this flag is set, 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 image data; and
at least one processor comprising hardware, the at least one processor being configured to process the image data 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 “in the image data displayed on a display” [line 6]. 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.
The image data displayed on a display is a separate item from “the image data”.
This is assumed to require that the processor is configured to display the image data of claim 1 on a display.
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, 19, Fig.1, para.35, 37, 43-44: other objects may arbitrarily grouped with the endoscope as accessories] configured to acquire image data [output from 10 and 19]; and
at least one processor [15, 20, Fig.1, para.13, 38, 52-54] comprising hardware, the at least one processor being configured to process the image data to:
acquire a distance from a treatment tool to target [para.43-44 or a distance in pixels between a target and a tool in the image data];
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 external impact.].
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 data; 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). This “determine the treatment phase” is an empty title which may be equated to acquisition of the image data. 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 data; and
determine the treatment phase on the basis of the type of the treatment tool [See the above rejection under 112 (d). This “detect a type of treatment tool” may be equated to acquisition of the image data. 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 data [See the above rejection under 112 (d). This “the type of a predetermined target treatment tool” may be equated to acquisition of the image data. 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). The applicant sets no alternative on the other side of the conditional, does not indicate if the processor identifies that the treatment tool is a grasping forceps, and the action here may be equated with receiving the image data. 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). This may be equated with receiving the image data. 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). The applicant sets no alternative on the other side of the conditional, and the action here may be equated with receiving the image data. Gombert at least discloses this by the rejection of claim 1.].
Claims 1, 5-9 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Gattani et al. (US 2008/0108873).
In regards to claim 1, gattani discloses an endoscope system comprising:
an endoscope [16, Fig.1, para.16] configured to acquire image data; and
at least one processor [18, 22, Fig.1, para.16-17] comprising hardware, the at least one processor being configured to process the image data to:
acquire a distance from a treatment tool to target [para.27-28];
acquire an operation state of the treatment tool [Figs.3a-b: tool present in images]; and
determine a necessity for zooming in and zooming out on the basis of at least one of the distance and the operation state [Figs.2-3, para.26-28].
In regards to claim 5, Gattani 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 data; 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). This “determine the treatment phase” is an empty title which may be equated to acquisition of the image data. Gattani at least discloses this by the rejection of claim 1. Also see Figs.3a-b, para.26-28 of Gattani.].
In regards to claim 6, Gattani 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 data; and
determine the treatment phase on the basis of the type of the treatment tool [See the above rejection under 112 (d). This “detect a type of treatment tool” may be equated to acquisition of the image data (Figs.3a-b). Gattani at least discloses this by the rejection of claim 1.].
In regards to claim 7, Gattani 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 data [See the above rejection under 112 (d). This “the type of a predetermined target treatment tool” may be equated to acquisition of the image data. Gattani at least discloses this by the rejection of claim 1.].
In regards to claim 8, Gattani 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). The applicant sets no alternative on the other side of the conditional, does not indicate if the processor identifies that the treatment tool is a grasping forceps, and the action here may be equated with receiving the image data. Gattani at least discloses this by the rejection of claim 1.].
In regards to claim 9, Gattani 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). This may be equated with receiving the image data. Gombert at least discloses this by the rejection of claim 1.].
In regards to claim 12, Gattani 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 [Gattani: Figs.2-3, para.26-28: if the tool and target are close enough in the image, only the zoom-in control will be performed. Also see the above rejection under 112 (d). The applicant sets no alternative on the other side of the conditional, and the action here may be equated with receiving the image data. Gattani at least discloses this by the rejection of claim 1.].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 2-4, 13 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gattani et al. (US 2008/0108873) in view of Vamanrao (US 2006/0241728).
In regards to claim 2, Gattani discloses the endoscope system according to Claim 1, wherein:
when the determining determines that zooming in is necessary, perform zoom-in control to enlarge a size of a target in the image data displayed on a display [para.26-28]; and
when the determining determines that zooming out is necessary, perform zoom- out control to reduce the size of the target in the image data displayed on the display [para.26-28].
However, Gattani does not positively disclose that the endoscope system further comprising an articulated robot arm configured to change one or more of a position and an orientation of the endoscope,
Vamanrao teaches that an endoscope [26, Fig.2, para.90-91] may be mounted on an articulated robot arm [10, Fig.2, para.85] configured to change one or more of a position and an orientation of the endoscope. Vamanrao teaches that this is done for the purpose of precisely positioning a tip of the endoscope within a body cavity of a patient [abstract, para.26].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the endoscope system of Gattani to comprise an articulated robot arm in accordance with the teaching of Vamanrao. This would be done for the purpose taught above.
In regards to claim 3, Gattani in view of Vamanrao teaches the endoscope system according to Claim 2, wherein the zoom-in control and the zoom-out control are performed by controlling an optical magnification of the endoscope [Gattani: para.31] or a digital magnification of the image data [Gattani: para.32].
In regards to claim 4, Gattani in view of Vamanrao teaches the endoscope system according to Claim 2, wherein the at least one processor is configured to perform the zoom-in control or the zoom-out control while keeping a specific point in the image data present in the image data [Gattani: para.26-28].
In regards to claim 13, Gattani in view of Vamanrao teaches the 13. (Currently Amended) The endoscope system according to Claim 2, wherein the at least one processor is configured to end the zoom-in control when a magnification of the target in the image data becomes higher than or equal to a predetermined first magnification [Gattani: para.26-28: zoomed in only a specific amount].
In regards to claim 16, Gattani in view of Vamanrao teaches the endoscope system according to Claim 2, wherein the at least one processor is configured to end the zoom-out control when a magnification of the target in the image data becomes less than or equal to a predetermined second magnification [Gattani: para.26-28: zoomed out only a specific amount].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 14-15 and 17-18 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 image data,
an articulated robot arm configured to change one or more of a position and orientation of the endoscope, and
a processor configured to process the image data 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 data on a display,
if the zoom in flag is set, the processor will enlarge a size of the target in the displayed image data,
if the zoom out flag is set, the processor will shrink the size of the target in the displayed image data,
determine magnification on the basis of an observation distance from the endoscope to the target,
(claim 14) end zoom-in control when a magnification of the target in the image data becomes greater than or equal to a predetermined first magnification (this is the text of claim 13),
OR
(claim 17) end zoom-out control when a magnification of the target in the image data becomes less than or equal to a predetermined second magnification (this is the text of claim 16),
Siegmund (US 4,588,294) discloses an endoscope system for determining distance from an endoscope using received image data.
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. Further, in one embodiment the endoscope automatically zooms in or out on a tool depending on whether the tool jaws are detected to be open or closed in the field of view.
Vamanrao (US 2006/0241728) discloses a robot arm used to carry and manipulate an endoscope.
Gattani et al. (US 2008/0108873) discloses the above except for the robot arm, and the processor being configured to determine magnification on the basis of an observation distance from the endoscope to the target,
Gombert et al. (US 2016/0199140) discloses an endoscope system comprising an endoscope, robotic arm and processor, the processor configured to utilize captured image data to perform zoom control to compensate for movement of the robot arm.
In obvious combination, the above prior art teaches the above except for the processor being configured to determine magnification on the basis of an observation distance from the endoscope to the target.
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.
Siegmund (US 4,588,294)
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection (ie. new art, altered interpretation of art) presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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
Prosecution Insights