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 .
This Office Action is in response to the amendments dated March 16, 2026.
Claims 1-16 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The present rejection(s) reference specific passages from cited prior art. However, Applicant is advised that the rejections are based on the entirety of each cited prior art. That is, each cited prior art reference “must be considered in its entirety”. Therefore, Applicant is advised to review all portions of the cited prior art if traversing a rejection based on the cited prior art.
Claims 1, 3-4, 8-9, 12-13, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Michihata (US PGPUB 2020/0020436 – “Michihata”) in view of Matsumoto (US PGPUB 2016/0088219 – “Matsumoto”).
Regarding Claim 1, Michihata discloses:
A device for medical imaging of an area to be observed (Michihata FIG. 1, medical observation system 1) comprising:
at least one light source for illuminating the area to be observed (Michihata FIG. 1, light source device 3) with illumination light and/or excitation light (Michihata paragraph [0024], “light source device 3 includes an LED that emits white light (normal light) and a semiconductor laser that emits near-infrared excitation light in a near-infrared wavelength region”);
an imager (Michihata FIG. 2, imaging unit 52) configured to capture live images and fluorescence images of the illuminated area (Michihata paragraph [0042], “imaging unit 52 captures the subject image or the fluorescent image under the control of the control device 9”; see also Michihata paragraph [0004], which defines “the subject image is an image obtained by irradiating the subject with white light”);
a processing circuitry (Michihata FIG. 2, image processing unit 92) communicatively connected with the imager (via transmission cable 6 in Michihata FIG. 2) and configured to:
determine whether the live images and/or the fluorescence images are captured in a static motion state (Michihata FIG. 2, determination unit 943; Michihata paragraph [0070], “determination unit 943 determines whether or not a motion area exists in the current subject image CSC…when there is no motion area in the current subject image CSC, the determination unit 943 determines that any of the subject and the observation device 100 does not move.”; Michihata paragraph [0071], “determination unit 943 determines whether or not the motion area exists in the current fluorescent image CFC…when there is no motion area in the current fluorescent image CFC, the determination unit 943 determines that any of the subject and the observation device 100 does not move.”),
adapt one or more image capturing or image processing parameters for one or more of the fluorescence images captured in a static motion state (Michihata paragraph [0092], “where it is determined that there is the motion area in the current fluorescent image CFC (it is determined that at least one of the subject and the observation device 100 does not move) (step S7: Yes), the superimposition controller 944 executes the step S10. Then, the superimposed image generation unit 924 outputs, to the display controller 93, the subject image immediately before the current fluorescent image CFC in time series as the superimposed image.”),
detect a region of interest based on the fluorescence images captured in a static motion state, and map the region of interest of the fluorescence images into a corresponding live image (Michihata FIG. 7 showing fluorescent images CF superimposed on white light images CS; Michihata paragraph [0098], “In FIG. 7…in the fluorescent images CF1 to CF3, the excitation region in which a drug such as indocyanine green in a living body is excited is represented in white, and the area other than the excitation region is represented in black. In addition, in the superimposed images D3, D4, and D6, the excitation regions are represented by an oblique line”); and
a display (Michihata FIG. 2, display device 7) configured to display the live images or copies of the live images in which the region of interest is mapped (Michihata FIG. 7; Michihata paragraph [0097], “FIG. 7 is a diagram illustrating a specific example of the image displayed on the display device 7…part (b) of FIG. 7 is a diagram illustrating one of the subject image and the fluorescent image to be superimposed by the superimposed image generation unit 924.”).
Michihata does not explicitly disclose that the processing parameters are for noise reduction.
Matsumoto teaches adjusting shutter speed of the image sensor in order to reduce image noise (Matsumoto paragraph [0023], “a movement of the photographic subject being static, i.e. slow, photography control is performed such that the shutter speed is changed as a slow speed…On the other hand…the frame rate is changed as a high rate in the case of photographing a moving image”; Matsumoto paragraph [0154], “in a case of a photographic subject moving fast, blurring occurs due to its movement or an important scene comes in a moment. Therefore, it is necessary to increase the shutter speed by adjusting the number of consecutive images or the frame rate”; Examiner interprets blurring as a type of image noise.).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Matsumoto’s controllable image sensor speed with the device disclosed by Michihata. A person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine these prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of a device that captures clear images whether the subject is static or moving.
Regarding Claim 3, Michihata in view of Matsumoto teaches the features of Claim 1, as described above.
Michihata further discloses wherein the processing circuitry is configured to spatially selective noise filter the fluorescence images, wherein the region of interest is filtered differently than remaining regions of the fluorescence images (Michihata FIG. 2, noise reduction processing unit 923; Michihata paragraph [0063], “NR processing unit 923 applies the time filter to the area other than the motion area specified by the control unit 94 and applies the spatial filter to the motion area to perform the noise reduction (NR) processing of removing random noise from the current fluorescent image CFC.”).
Regarding Claim 4, Michihata in view of Matsumoto teaches the features of Claim 3, as described above.
Michihata further discloses wherein the processing circuitry is configured to apply a first noise filter on the remaining regions and a separate second noise filter on the region of interest of the fluorescence images in the spatially selective noise filtering (Michihata paragraph [0063], “In the current subject image CSC, the NR processing unit 923 applies a time filter to an area other than the motion area specified by the control unit 94 and applies a spatial filter to the motion area to perform noise reduction (NR) processing of removing random noise from the current subject image CSC. Similarly, in the current fluorescent image CFC, the NR processing unit 923 applies the time filter to the area other than the motion area specified by the control unit 94 and applies the spatial filter to the motion area to perform the noise reduction (NR) processing of removing random noise from the current fluorescent image CFC.”).
Regarding Claim 8, Michihata in view of Matsumoto teaches the features of Claim 1, as described above.
Michihata further discloses wherein the processing circuitry is configured to determine whether the imager is in a static motion state via evaluating image data received from the imager and/or via evaluating motion data of a motion sensor included in the imager (Michihata paragraph [0070], “determination unit 943 determines whether or not a motion area exists in the current subject image CSC…when there is no motion area in the current subject image CSC, the determination unit 943 determines that any of the subject and the observation device 100 does not move.”).
Regarding Claim 9, Michihata in view of Matsumoto teaches the features of Claim 4, as described above.
Michihata discloses wherein the second noise filter includes data from a current fluorescence image only (Michihata paragraph [0063], “in the current fluorescent image CFC, the NR processing unit 923 applies the time filter to the area other than the motion area specified by the control unit 94 and applies the spatial filter to the motion area to perform the noise reduction (NR) processing of removing random noise from the current fluorescent image CFC.”).
Regarding Claim 12, Michihata in view of Matsumoto teaches the features of Claim 1, as described above.
As described above in the rejection of Claim 1, Michihata discloses a fluorescence camera sensor (Michihata paragraph [0042], “imaging unit 52 captures the subject image or the fluorescent image under the control of the control device 9”).
Matsumoto further teaches wherein the one or more image capturing or image processing parameters include a shutter speed of a camera sensor of the imager (Matsumoto FIG. 2, image capture unit 16; Matsumoto paragraph [0023], “a movement of the photographic subject being static, i.e. slow, photography control is performed such that the shutter speed is changed as a slow speed…On the other hand…the frame rate is changed as a high rate in the case of photographing a moving image”), an amplification factor for the fluorescence images, and/or a number of previous frames used for noise filtering the fluorescence images by frame averaging.
Regarding Claim 13, Michihata in view of Matsumoto teaches the features of Claim 12, as described above.
Michihata discloses taking fluorescence images (Michihata paragraph [0042], “imaging unit 52 captures the subject image or the fluorescent image under the control of the control device 9”).
Matsumoto further teaches:
wherein the processing circuitry is configured to adapt the one or more image capturing or image processing parameters (Matsumoto paragraph [0023], “a movement of the photographic subject being static, i.e. slow, photography control is performed such that the shutter speed is changed as a slow speed…On the other hand…the frame rate is changed as a high rate in the case of photographing a moving image”) for one or more images by:
decreasing the amplification factor and/or the shutter speed of the imager if the imager is in a static motion state (Matsumoto FIG. 1A, left figure), and/or
increasing the amplification factor and/or the shutter speed of the imager, if the imager is in a moving motion state (Matsumoto FIG. 1A, right figure).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Matsumoto’s controllable image sensor speed with the device taught by Michihata in view of Matsumoto A person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine these prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of a device that captures clear images whether the subject is static or moving.
Regarding Claim 15, Michihata in view of Matsumoto teaches the features of Claim 1, as described above.
Michihata further discloses:
A method for medical imaging of an area to be observed with the device according to claim 1, comprising:
illuminating the area to be observed with illumination light and/or excitation light (Michihata paragraph [0024], “light source device 3 includes an LED that emits white light (normal light) and a semiconductor laser that emits near-infrared excitation light in a near-infrared wavelength region”);
capturing live images and fluorescence light images of the illuminated area (Michihata paragraph [0042], “imaging unit 52 captures the subject image or the fluorescent image under the control of the control device 9”; see also Michihata paragraph [0004], which defines “the subject image is an image obtained by irradiating the subject with white light”);
determining if the imager is in a static motion state (Michihata paragraph [0070], “determination unit 943 determines whether or not a motion area exists in the current subject image CSC…when there is no motion area in the current subject image CSC, the determination unit 943 determines that any of the subject and the observation device 100 does not move.”; Michihata paragraph [0071], “determination unit 943 determines whether or not the motion area exists in the current fluorescent image CFC…when there is no motion area in the current fluorescent image CFC, the determination unit 943 determines that any of the subject and the observation device 100 does not move.”);
adapting one or more image capturing or image processing parameters for one or more fluorescence Images captured in a static motion state Michihata paragraph [0092], “where it is determined that there is the motion area in the current fluorescent image CFC (it is determined that at least one of the subject and the observation device 100 does not move) (step S7: Yes), the superimposition controller 944 executes the step S10. Then, the superimposed image generation unit 924 outputs, to the display controller 93, the subject image immediately before the current fluorescent image CFC in time series as the superimposed image.”);
detecting a region of interest based on the fluorescence images captured in a static motion state; mapping the region of interest of the fluorescence images into the corresponding live image (Michihata FIG. 7 showing fluorescent images CF superimposed on white light images CS; Michihata paragraph [0098], “In FIG. 7…in the fluorescent images CF1 to CF3, the excitation region in which a drug such as indocyanine green in a living body is excited is represented in white, and the area other than the excitation region is represented in black. In addition, in the superimposed images D3, D4, and D6, the excitation regions are represented by an oblique line”); and
displaying the live image in which the region of interest is mapped (Michihata FIG. 7; Michihata paragraph [0097], “FIG. 7 is a diagram illustrating a specific example of the image displayed on the display device 7…part (b) of FIG. 7 is a diagram illustrating one of the subject image and the fluorescent image to be superimposed by the superimposed image generation unit 924.”).
Claims 2 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Michihata (US PGPUB 2020/0020436 – “Michihata”) in view of in view of Matsumoto (US PGPUB 2016/0088219 – “Matsumoto”) and Ikehara (US PGPUB 2019/0247126 – “Ikehara”).
Regarding Claim 2, Michihata in view of Matsumoto teaches the features of Claim 1, as described above.
Michihata in view of Matsumoto does not explicitly teach wherein the processing circuitry is configured to track a previously detected region of interest in subsequent live images, when the imager is in a moving motion state, and map back the tracked region of interest into subsequent fluorescence images.
Ikehara teaches wherein the processing circuitry (Ikehara FIG. 9, tracking processor 32e) is configured to track a previously detected region of interest in subsequent live images, when the imager is in a moving motion state, and map back the tracked region of interest into subsequent fluorescence images (see Ikehara paragraphs [0082] – [0086], including “processor 32e performs moving-body tracking of the region of interest 51…The region of interest 51 is a region within a predetermined range specified by the user in the acquired image before the start of the moving-body tracking…the image output 32f generates the screen image 45 including the captured visible image 42 and fluorescent image 41 and the synthetic image 44 generated by the image synthesizer 32d, for example…In FIG. 11, the rectangular region of interest 51 is superimposed and displayed on each image.”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Ikehara’s superimposition of previously detected regions of interest with subsequent fluorescence images with the process/device described by Michihata in view of Matsumoto. A person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine these prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of a device that presents changes in fluorescence areas of interest (see Michihata paragraph [0085]).
Regarding Claim 16, Michihata discloses:
A device for medical imaging of an area to be observed (Michihata FIG. 1, medical observation system 1) comprising:
at least one light source for illuminating the area to be observed (Michihata FIG. 1, light source device 3) with illumination light and/or excitation light (Michihata paragraph [0024], “light source device 3 includes an LED that emits white light (normal light) and a semiconductor laser that emits near-infrared excitation light in a near-infrared wavelength region”);
an imager (Michihata FIG. 2, imaging unit 52) configured to capture live images and fluorescence images of the illuminated area (Michihata paragraph [0042], “imaging unit 52 captures the subject image or the fluorescent image under the control of the control device 9”; see also Michihata paragraph [0004], which defines “the subject image is an image obtained by irradiating the subject with white light”);
a processing circuitry (Michihata FIG. 2, image processing unit 92) communicatively connected with the imager (via transmission cable 6 in Michihata FIG. 2) and configured to:
determine whether the live images and/or the fluorescence images are captured in a static motion state (Michihata FIG. 2, determination unit 943; Michihata paragraph [0070], “determination unit 943 determines whether or not a motion area exists in the current subject image CSC…when there is no motion area in the current subject image CSC, the determination unit 943 determines that any of the subject and the observation device 100 does not move.”; Michihata paragraph [0071], “determination unit 943 determines whether or not the motion area exists in the current fluorescent image CFC…when there is no motion area in the current fluorescent image CFC, the determination unit 943 determines that any of the subject and the observation device 100 does not move.”),
adapt one or more image capturing or image processing parameters for one or more of the fluorescence images captured in a static motion state (Michihata paragraph [0092], “where it is determined that there is the motion area in the current fluorescent image CFC (it is determined that at least one of the subject and the observation device 100 does not move) (step S7: Yes), the superimposition controller 944 executes the step S10. Then, the superimposed image generation unit 924 outputs, to the display controller 93, the subject image immediately before the current fluorescent image CFC in time series as the superimposed image.”),
detect a region of interest based on the fluorescence images captured in a static motion state, and map the region of interest of the fluorescence images into a corresponding live image (Michihata FIG. 7 showing fluorescent images CF superimposed on white light images CS; Michihata paragraph [0098], “In FIG. 7…in the fluorescent images CF1 to CF3, the excitation region in which a drug such as indocyanine green in a living body is excited is represented in white, and the area other than the excitation region is represented in black. In addition, in the superimposed images D3, D4, and D6, the excitation regions are represented by an oblique line”);
a display (Michihata FIG. 2, display device 7) configured to display the live images or copies of the live images in which the region of interest is mapped (Michihata FIG. 7; Michihata paragraph [0097], “FIG. 7 is a diagram illustrating a specific example of the image displayed on the display device 7…part (b) of FIG. 7 is a diagram illustrating one of the subject image and the fluorescent image to be superimposed by the superimposed image generation unit 924.”); and
wherein the processing circuitry is configured to spatially selective noise filter the fluorescence images, wherein the region of interest is filtered differently than remaining regions of the fluorescence images (Michihata FIG. 2, noise reduction processing unit 923; Michihata paragraph [0063], “NR processing unit 923 applies the time filter to the area other than the motion area specified by the control unit 94 and applies the spatial filter to the motion area to perform the noise reduction (NR) processing of removing random noise from the current fluorescent image CFC.”).
Michihata does not explicitly disclose that the processing parameters are for noise reduction.
The present specification teaches in paragraph [0018] that a processing parameter can be the adjustment of shutter speed for the image sensor in order to reduce image noise. As such, Matsumoto teaches adjusting shutter speed of the image sensor in order to reduce image noise (Matsumoto paragraph [0023], “a movement of the photographic subject being static, i.e. slow, photography control is performed such that the shutter speed is changed as a slow speed…On the other hand…the frame rate is changed as a high rate in the case of photographing a moving image”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Matsumoto’s controllable image sensor speed with the device disclosed by Michihata. A person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine these prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of a device that captures clear images whether the subject is static or moving.
Michihata in view of Matsumoto does not explicitly teach wherein the processing circuitry is configured to track a previously detected region of interest in subsequent live images, when the imager is in a moving motion state, and map back the tracked region of interest into subsequent fluorescence images.
Ikehara teaches wherein the processing circuitry (Ikehara FIG. 9, tracking processor 32e) is configured to track a previously detected region of interest in subsequent live images, when the imager is in a moving motion state, and map back the tracked region of interest into subsequent fluorescence images (see Ikehara paragraphs [0082] – [0086], including “processor 32e performs moving-body tracking of the region of interest 51…The region of interest 51 is a region within a predetermined range specified by the user in the acquired image before the start of the moving-body tracking…the image output 32f generates the screen image 45 including the captured visible image 42 and fluorescent image 41 and the synthetic image 44 generated by the image synthesizer 32d, for example…In FIG. 11, the rectangular region of interest 51 is superimposed and displayed on each image.”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Ikehara’s superimposition of previously detected regions of interest with subsequent fluorescence images with the process/device described by Michihata in view of Matsumoto. A person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine these prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of a device that presents changes in fluorescence areas of interest (see Michihata paragraph [0085]).
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Michihata (US PGPUB 2020/0020436 – “Michihata”) in view of in view of Matsumoto (US PGPUB 2016/0088219 – “Matsumoto”) and Takahashi (US PGPUB 2008/0253679 – “Takahashi”).
Regarding Claim 5, Michihata in view of Matsumoto teaches the features of Claim 4, as described above.
Michihata discloses applying a noise filter to remaining regions of the fluorescence images from previous frames of the fluorescence images that are included exclusively (Michihata paragraph [0063], “NR processing unit 923 applies the time filter to the area other than the motion area specified by the control unit 94 and applies the spatial filter to the motion area to perform the noise reduction (NR) processing of removing random noise from the current fluorescent image CFC.”).
Michihata in view of Matsumoto does not explicitly disclose that the noise filter is a running average filter.
Takahashi teaches the noise filter is a running average filter (Takahashi FIG. 2, step S204 for setting noise damping of image data that has been recursively filtered in step S201; Takahashi paragraph [0075], “a running average filter…can be used as the low-pass filter”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Takahashi’s running average filter with the device taught by Michihata in view of Matsumoto. A person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine these prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of a device that smooths out previously captured images before having noise removed therefrom.
Regarding Claim 6, Michihata in view of Matsumoto teaches the features of Claim 4, as described above.
Michihata in view of Matsumoto does not explicitly teach wherein the first noise filter is a median average filter and/or a weighted running average filter of one or more previous frames of the fluorescence images.
Takahashi teaches wherein the first noise filter is a median average filter and/or a weighted running average filter of one or more previous frames of the fluorescence images (Takahashi FIG. 2, step S204 for setting noise damping of image data that has been recursively filtered in step S201; Takahashi paragraph [0075], “a running average filter…can be used as the low-pass filter”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Takahashi’s running average filter with the device taught by Michihata in view of Matsumoto. A person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine these prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of a device that smooths out previously captured images before having noise removed therefrom.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Michihata (US PGPUB 2020/0020436 – “Michihata”) in view of in view of Matsumoto (US PGPUB 2016/0088219 – “Matsumoto”) and Ekker et al. (US PGPUB 2002/0078471 – “Ekker”).
Regarding Claim 7, Michihata in view of Matsumoto teaches the features of Claim 1, as described above.
Michihata discloses detect the region of interest based on the fluorescence images captured in a static motion state, and map the region of interest of the fluorescence images into the corresponding live image (Michihata FIG. 7 showing fluorescent images CF superimposed on white light images CS; Michihata paragraph [0098], “In FIG. 7…in the fluorescent images CF1 to CF3, the excitation region in which a drug such as indocyanine green in a living body is excited is represented in white, and the area other than the excitation region is represented in black. In addition, in the superimposed images D3, D4, and D6, the excitation regions are represented by an oblique line”).
Michihata in view of Matsumoto does not explicitly teach wherein the processing circuitry is configured to determine a saturation level in subsequent live images and perform the following steps, if the saturation level exceeds a predetermined threshold: adapt the one or more image capturing or image processing parameters for one or more of the fluorescence images captured in a static motion state.
Ekker teaches wherein the processing circuitry is configured to determine a saturation level in subsequent live images and perform the following step, if the saturation level exceeds a predetermined threshold: adapt the one or more image capturing or image processing parameters for one or more of the fluorescence images captured in a static motion state (Ekker paragraph [0145], “Fluorescence pictures…were taken using a MICROIMAGE I30B Low Light Integrating Camera…Signal intensities were set to sub-saturation levels for maximal information capture.”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Ekker’s low-saturation levels with the device taught by Michihata in view of Matsumoto. A person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine these prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of a device that acquires clear fluorescence images that are not overpowered/washed out by high-saturation levels of visible light.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Michihata (US PGPUB 2020/0020436 – “Michihata”) in view of in view of Matsumoto (US PGPUB 2016/0088219 – “Matsumoto”) and Herrero Molina et al. (US PGPUB 2018/0225522 – “Herrero Molina”).
Regarding Claim 10, Michihata in view of Matsumoto teaches the features of Claim 4, as described above.
Michihata discloses a noise filter that is applied to remaining regions of a fluorescence image (Michihata FIG. 2, noise reduction processing unit 923; Michihata paragraph [0063], “NR processing unit 923 applies the time filter to the area other than the motion area specified by the control unit 94 and applies the spatial filter to the motion area to perform the noise reduction (NR) processing of removing random noise from the current fluorescent image CFC.”).
However, Michihata in view of Matsumoto does not explicitly teach a noise filter that is a spatial median based filter.
Herrero Molina teaches a noise filter that is a spatial median based filter (Herrero Molina paragraph [0038], “if spatial filtering is used to reduce noise, it is possible to choose between filters that reduce noise in the spatial domain, among which are linear filters, e.g. mean filters, and non-linear filters, e.g. median or bilateral filters, and filters that reduce noise in the transformed domain”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Herrero Molina’s spatial median based filter with the device taught by Michihata in view of Matsumoto. A person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine these prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of a device that enhances the clarity of a captured image (see paragraph [0030] of Herrero Molina).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Michihata (US PGPUB 2020/0020436 – “Michihata”) in view of Matsumoto (US PGPUB 2016/0088219 – “Matsumoto”) and Tata et al. (US PGPUB 2021/0127949 – “Tata”).
Regarding Claim 14, Michihata in view of Matsumoto teaches the features of Claim 1, as described above.
Michihata further discloses:
an endoscope (Michihata FIG. 1, medical observation system 1) with a distal end and proximal end between which an elongated shaft (Michihata FIG. 1, insertion unit 2) extends;
the light source is located at the distal end or the proximal end of the endoscope (Michihata FIG. 1, light source device 3), wherein the elongated shaft comprises at least one optical channel through which the illumination light (w) and/or excitation light (e) is guided from the light source at the proximal end to the distal end if the light source is located at the proximal end (Michihata paragraph [0025], “light supplied to the insertion unit 2 is emitted from a distal end of the insertion unit 2”); and
the imager is located at the distal end or the proximal end of the endoscope (Michihata FIG. 1, camera head 5 at proximal end of insertion unit 2), wherein the elongated shaft comprises at least one optical channel through which light reflected and/or emitted from the area to be observed is guided from the distal end to the proximal end if the image unit is located at the proximal end (Michihata paragraph [0026], “The camera head 5 captures the subject image or the fluorescent image condensed by the insertion unit 2.”).
Michihata in view of Matsumoto does not explicitly teach an inertial measurement unit is positioned at the distal end of the endoscope.
Tata teaches an inertial measurement unit (Tata FIG. 8, orientation sensor in distal end of endoscope 812) is positioned at the distal end of the endoscope (Tata paragraph [0060], “endoscope 812 includes…an orientation sensor at the distal end of the endoscope. The orientation sensor may be an inertial measurement unit (IMU)”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Tata’s IMU with the device taught by Michihata in view of Matsumoto. A person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine these prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of a device that provides real-time information regarding the position of the distal end of the endoscope, in order to guide and orient the endoscope in order to direct it to a region of interest and/or to prevent it from physically colliding with the region of interest.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 9-10, filed March 16, 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of Claim 1 (and thus also new Claim 16) under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) have been fully considered and are persuasive in view of the present amendments. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made under 35 U.S.C. 103 in view of Matsumoto (US PGPUB 2016/0088219 – “Matsumoto”). Specifically, the current amendments add the feature of the processing parameters being for noise reduction. As described in the present rejection of Claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103, this feature is taught by Matsumoto paragraph [0023], “a movement of the photographic subject being static, i.e. slow, photography control is performed such that the shutter speed is changed as a slow speed…On the other hand…the frame rate is changed as a high rate in the case of photographing a moving image”; Matsumoto paragraph [0154], “in a case of a photographic subject moving fast, blurring occurs due to its movement or an important scene comes in a moment. Therefore, it is necessary to increase the shutter speed by adjusting the number of consecutive images or the frame rate”. Examiner interprets blurring as image noise.
On page 9, Applicant further asserts that Michihata (US PGPUB 2020/0020436 – “Michihata”) fails to teach adapting processing parameters to the images themselves. Examiner interprets superimposing images as adapting the images themselves, since this changes the very appearance of the images themselves.
On page 10, Applicant asserts that Ikehara (US PGPUB 2019/0247126 – “Ikehara”) fails to teach the feature found in Claims 2 and 16 of tracking a previously detected region of interest in subsequent live images, when the imager is in a moving motion state, and map back the tracked region of interest into subsequent fluorescence images. Applicant asserts that Ikehara teaches tracking a region of interest by template matching and correlation-based techniques “to be used primarily for analyzing intensity changes of generating time-intensity curves”, but does not explain why this is different from tracking a previously detected region of interest in subsequent live images, when the imager is in a moving motion state, and map back the tracked region of interest into subsequent fluorescence images. Examiner asserts that cited paragraphs [0082]-[0086] of Ikehara teach this feature when teaching “processor 32e performs moving-body tracking of the region of interest 51…The region of interest 51 is a region within a predetermined range specified by the user in the acquired image before the start of the moving-body tracking…the image output 32f generates the screen image 45 including the captured visible image 42 and fluorescent image 41 and the synthetic image 44 generated by the image synthesizer 32d, for example…In FIG. 11, the rectangular region of interest 51 is superimposed and displayed on each image”. That is, Examiner asserts that superimposing and displaying subsequent images explicitly teaches mapping back the tracked region of interest into subsequent fluorescence images that are captured by moving-body tracking.
On page 10, Applicant further asserts that Ikehara fails to teach filtering a region of interest differently from the remaining regions of the fluorescence image, as found in Claims 3 and 16, but fails to explain why Michihata paragraph [0063] (“NR processing unit 923 applies the time filter to the area other than the motion area specified by the control unit 94 and applies the spatial filter to the motion area to perform the noise reduction (NR) processing of removing random noise from the current fluorescent image CFC.”) does not teach this feature. Examiner asserts that applying a time filter to areas other than the motion area teaches filtering different regions in the image differently.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 11 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: No combination of the identified prior art teaches of suggests wherein a number of previous frames included in the first noise filter is larger than a number of previous frames included in the second noise filter. That is, no combination of the identified prior art teaches or suggests that image frames that have had a first noise filter applied to areas that are not a region of interest are greater in number than the image frames that have had a second noise filter applied to areas of interest.
The closest identified prior art is Michihata (US PGPUB 2020/0020436 – “Michihata”), which teaches in paragraph [0063] first and second noise filters applied to different areas (areas of interest and areas that are not of interest), as described in the rejection of Claim 4. However, neither Michihata nor any combination of the identified prior art teaches or suggests having more frames that have had the first noise filter applied than frames that have had the second noise filter applied.
Furthermore, there is no reason or suggestion provided in the prior art to modify the identified 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
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 JIM BOICE whose telephone number is (571)272-6565. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00am - 5:00pm Eastern.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Anhtuan Nguyen can be reached at (571)272-4963. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
JIM BOICE
Examiner
Art Unit 3795
/JAMES EDWARD BOICE/Examiner, Art Unit 3795
/ANH TUAN T NGUYEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3795
05/11/26
Prosecution Insights