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 .
Notice of Amendment
In response to the amendment filed 2/9/26, amended claims 1, 3-4, 8-10, 12-13, 17-18; canceled claims 2 and 11; and new claims 19-22 are acknowledged. The following new grounds of rejection are set forth:
Specification
The amendment filed 2/9/26 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows:
“The third angle c and the fourth angle d are two different arbitrary angles for
calculating the first value K, and may refer to values obtained by subtracting the angle between the tip portion 153 and the insertion unit 151 from 180 degrees.”
(emphasis added)
The newly added instructions were not previously presented in the specification and represents new matter. Applicant is invited to provide support for the newly added disclosure that was in the originally filed specification.
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
It is further noted, the Applicant amends para 0097, which does NOT coincide with the changes presented. It appears the Applicant intended to amend para 0096. Appropriate clarification and correction is required.
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.
GROUND 1: Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the
claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 8-9 recite a method of obtaining size information on a lesion. The
method is defined in term of certain functions to be performed (e.g. calculating a “first value”, “a total movement” and a “target angle”). Specifically, claims 8-9 fail to recite any specific device or component, and thus do not require any structure for performing the claimed functions (e.g., calculating).
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application for the
following reasons:
The claimed method is limited to acquiring data, performing calculations based
on the acquired data, and performing controls based on the calculations. These
functions are capable of being performed in the human mind and carried out by a
human being.
The claimed method is limited to implementation via a computer system, i.e.,
implementation via a generic calculating device receiving inputs from computer
peripherals in the form of a generic measuring device and a generic detecting device.
The recitation of generic computer components (i.e. calculating a value/angle) and generic computer functions does not result in the judicial exception being integrated into a practical application. That is, this does not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because it amounts to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer.
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.
GROUND 2: Claims 1, 3-10 and 11-22 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.
Claims 1 and 10 recite “determining, by the control unit, size information on the lesion located within the first area based on lesion size information on the image and a first distance between the lesion and the tip portion calculated by the control unit” which leads to confusion. First, it is unclear how the size information on the lesion is determined based on lesion size information on the image as claimed. The language is redundant and it ultimately unclear as to how any determination with regard to lesion size is actually made or performed by the control unit. It appears from claim 6, that the “size information on the image” is a “bounding box”, and that the determination of size information of the lesion is a separate measurement, however this is not positively recited within the claim. Claim 10 is an apparatus claim which recites similar limitations and is rejected under the same rationale. Additionally, the claim language leads further to confusion by reciting that the control unit both “determines” and “calculates” a first distance between the lesion and the tip portion. The language is redundant and Applicant is requested to clarify the method/apparatus being claimed.
Claims 3-9 and 12-22 are rejected as being necessarily dependent upon claims 1 and 10, receptively.
Claims 4 and 13 recites “..wherein the calculating the first distance comprises: obtaining a first image…and a second image:” which leads to confusion. Claims 1 and 10 recite an image is “obtained by an image sensor” which contradicts claims 4 and 13, respectively, which recite a first and second image being obtained by the control unit. Appropriate clarification and correction is required.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the controlling of the tip portion" in line 2 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 8 and 17 recite “calculating a first value, the first value being a ratio of the difference in position on the image to the change in angle of the top portion” which is unclear and vague. It is unclear what “position” is being referred to, as the claims fail to positively define any positions or directions, or any change thereof with regard to the image or any objects within the image.
Claims 9 and 18 are rejected as being necessarily dependent upon claims 8 and 17, receptively.
Claims 9 and 18 recite “calculating a target angle of the tip portion at a current time” which is unclear and vague. It is unclear what is considered a “current time”. Appropriate clarification and correction is required.
Claims 19-22 recite the limitation "positioning the lesion with the first area" in line 1 of each claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Furthermore, the term “positioning the lesion” implies the lesion is moved, not the endoscope, which appears to be what Appclaint intends to claim.
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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], 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.
GROUND 3: Claims 5, 8-9, 14 and 17-18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 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.
Claims 5 and 14 reiterate limitations already recited in claims 1 and 10, from which they are dependent upon, respectively.
Claims 8-9 and 17-18 are dependent upon canceled 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
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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.
GROUND 4: Claim(s) 1, 3, 5-10 and 12, 14-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(A)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent No. 11,656,451 to Hayami et al. in view of JP 2011-115252 to Yamabe.
In regard to claims 1, 5, 7, 10, 14, 16, Hayami et al. disclose a method of obtaining size information on a lesion, the method comprising: obtaining, by an image sensor 24 disposed on a tip portion of an endoscopic device, an image inside a body; identifying, by a pre-trained model, at least one lesion from the image (see Figs. 2 and 9) and determining, by the control unit, size information on the lesion located within the first area based on lesion size information on the image and a first distance between the lesion and the tip portion calculated by the control unit, wherein the first area includes a center of the angle of view of the image sensor (See Figs. 3 and 10-13). Hayami et al. are silent with respect to controlling, by a control unit and a driving unit of the endoscopic device, a bending portion of the endoscopic device, coupled to the tip portion, to mechanically move the tip portion such that the identified at least one lesion is located within a first area of an angle of view of the image sensor. Yamabe teaches of an analogous endoscopic device comprising a control unit configured to automatically drive positioning of the endoscope to track a target region (i.e. lesion) on an image obtained by the endoscope (See Figs. 7-8 and pages 5-6 of translation). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was filed to control bending and movement of the endoscope in accordance with lesion detection to allow for a more efficient and effective surgical procedure by ensuring the detected lesion is located in the center of the image at all times as taught by Yamabe and is well known in the art.
In regard to claims 3 and 12, Hayami et al. disclose a method, wherein the calculating of the first distance comprises calculating the first distance based on brightness information on the lesion expressed in the image (See Figs. 3 and 10-13 and Col. 5, Lines 1-30).
In regard to claims 6 and 15, Hayami et al. disclose a method, wherein the lesion size information on the image comprises a bounding box displayed to surround the lesion (See Figs 5-8).
In regard to claims 8 and 17, Hayami et al. disclose a method, wherein an angle of view of the image sensor comprises a first area, and the controlling of the tip portion comprises controlling the tip portion such that the lesion is located within the first area (See Figs. 3 and 10-13).
In regard to claims 9 and 18, Hayami et al. disclose a method, wherein the controlling of the tip portion comprises calculating a first value (See Figs. 3 and 10-13).
In regard to claims 19-22, Hayami et al., as modified Yamabe, disclose a method, wherein positioning the lesion within the first area is configured to improve calculation of the first distance and support reliable size information (See Figs. 3 and 10-13).
GROUND 5: Claim(s) 4 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 11,656,451 to Hayami et al. in view of JP 2011-115252 to Yamabe in further view of U.S. Patent No. 6,459,481 to Schaack.
In regard to claims 4 and 13, Hayami et al. and Yamabe disclose a method of obtaining size information on a lesion (See rejections above) but are silent with respect to the calculating of the first distance comprises: obtaining a first image when a tip portion is at a first angle, and a second image when the tip portion is at a second angle; and measuring a difference between the first angle and the second angle, and a visual disparity between the first image and the second image. Schaack teach of an analogous endoscopic device wherein two different views of the area of interest are obtained using the endoscope's imaging section, with each view containing both the object being inspected (Figures 1-6 and Col 44, Line 29 - Col. 13, Line 50). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was filed to calculate the first distance of Hayami et al. and Yamabe using two images at different angles in order to improve the precision of three-dimensional measurements taken using the endoscope, as taught by Schaack.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 3-10 and 12-22 have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection. See GROUNDS 1-5 above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection 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 MATTHEW J KASZTEJNA whose telephone number is (571)272-6086. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 7AM--3PM.
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, Eileen Lillis can be reached at 571-272-6928. 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.
/MATTHEW J KASZTEJNA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3993