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 amendment filed on 05/26/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-12, 14- 19 are pending. Claims 13 are cancelled.
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.
Claim 7, 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.
Claim 7, recites the limitation, “the first image,” in line 3.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-3, 14, 16-18, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shameli (US 20200201022) in view of Von (US 20140179997).
Regarding claim 1, Shameli discloses a surgical imaging system (FIG. 1) comprising:
a scope extending along a scope axis comprising an optic element (FIG. 3A; camera 60 with a lens; para [0043]);
an image sensor (camera 60; FIG. 3A) configured to capture source image data in a field of view transmitted through the optic element; and
a controller (control 56) configured to:
control the capture of source image data at the native perspective at the first inclination angle (Para [0054]);
select a first subset of the source image including a first portion of the field of view, simulating a second inclination angle different from the native perspective (Image is modified so that a visual effect similar to the rotation of the lens is produced. Para [0068]; A captured image for a field of view is used. Since the image data is rotated from an un-rotated angle, the unrotated angle is considered as native perspective.); and
selectively output at least one modified source image data simulating the second inclination angle to a display screen (Image is modified so that a visual effect similar to the rotation of the lens is produced. Para [0068]; This may be accomplished by applying image processing algorithms to modify and redisplay the image in real-time. Para [0068]; Experience of rotational orientation is provided. Para [0067]).
Shameli does not expressly disclose an optic element aligned at a first inclination angle relative to the scope axis, defining a native perspective.
Von is directed to a multi-camera system consisting of at least one endoscope camera for a robotic system (para [0002]) and teaches an optic element aligned (imaging taking device 22a; pivoting directions 26a; FIG. 1; para [0040]) at a first inclination angle relative to the scope axis, defining a native perspective.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Shameli to include inclination angle with the imaging device in accordance with the teaching of Von so that imaging angle of view could be directed to the area as chosen by a user.
Regarding claim 2, Shameli discloses wherein the first subset is offset from a focal center of the field of view of the source image data based on a difference between the first inclination angle and the second inclination angle (Since algorithms brings the effect of rotation of the lens, Para [0069], this is same as having difference between the first inclination angle and the second inclination angle. Experience of rotational orientation is provided. Para [0067]).
Regarding claim 3, Shameli discloses wherein the controller is further configured to: detect one or more features in the source image data indicating a rotation of the scope relative to a camera body (The features in the image that correspond to the rotation be considered as the detected features because image signal corresponding to these features undergo the rotational effect. The claim does not define what the specific features in the image are.), wherein the selection of the first subset is responsive to the rotation of the scope (The image data that undergo rotational effect are considered as the subset of the data and since the data underdo rotational effect, the data are selected by the processor to undergo through the algorithm.).
Regarding claim 14, Shameli discloses wherein the generation of the first image data comprises applying an image correction algorithm, wherein the controller is further configured to: limit a range of the image correction algorithm to the first subset of the source image data for the first image data (Image is modified so that a visual effect similar to the rotation of the lens is produced. Para [0068]; A captured image for a field of view is used; This may be accomplished by applying image processing algorithms to modify and redisplay the image in real-time. Para [0068]; Data that is having a visual effect similar to the rotation of the lens is considered as the range of data.).
Regarding claim 16, Shameli as discloses a method (abstract; FIG. 1) for controlling a surgical imaging comprising:
controlling the capture of source image data (Imaging angle can be changed; FIG. 2; Para [0054]) in a field of view of a scope defining an elongated scope axis.
selecting a first subset of the source image including a first portion of the field of view simulating a second inclination angle (Image is modified so that a visual effect similar to the rotation of the lens is produced. Para [0068]; A captured image for a field of view is used.);
modifying the first subset of the source image data generating modified source image data at the second inclination angle different from the first inclination angle (Image is modified so that a visual effect similar to the rotation of the lens is produced. Para [0068]; This may be accomplished by applying image processing algorithms to modify and redisplay the image in real-time. Para [0068]; Experience of rotational orientation is provided. Para [0067]); and
selectively displaying modified source image data simulating the second inclination angle (Image is modified so that a visual effect similar to the rotation of the lens is produced. Para [0068]; This may be accomplished by applying image processing algorithms to modify and redisplay the image in real-time. Para [0068]; Experience of rotational orientation is provided. Para [0067]).
Shameli does not expressly disclose a first inclination angle of a scope at a first inclination angle relative to the elongated scope axis.
Von is directed to a multi-camera system consisting of at least one endoscope camera for a robotic system (para [0002]) and teaches an optic element aligned (imaging taking device 22a; pivoting directions 26a; FIG. 1; para [0040]) at a first inclination angle relative to the scope axis, defining a native perspective.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Shameli to have an inclination angle with the imaging device in accordance with the teaching of Von so that imaging field of view could be directed to an area as chosen by a user.
Regarding claim 17, Shameli discloses wherein the first subset is offset from a focal center of the field of view of the source image data based on a difference between the first inclination angle and the second inclination angle (Since algorithms brings the effect of rotation of the lens, Para [0069], this is same as having difference between the first inclination angle and the second inclination angle. Experience of rotational orientation is provided. Para [0067]).
Regarding claim 18, Shameli discloses detecting one or more features in the source image data indicating a rotation of the scope relative to a camera body (The features in the image that correspond to the rotation be considered as the detected features because image signal corresponding to these features undergo the rotational effect. The claim does not define what the specific features in the image are.), wherein the selection of the first subset is responsive to the rotation of the scope (The image data that undergo rotational effect are considered as the subset of the data and since the data underdo rotational effect, the data are selected by the processor to undergo through the algorithm.).
Regarding claim 21, Shameli discloses wherein the at least one modified source image data simulating the second inclination is modified to simulate characteristic distortions (Image is modified so that a visual effect similar to the rotation of the lens is produced. Para [0068]; A captured image for a field of view is used. Since the image data is rotated from an un-rotated angle, the unrotated angle is considered as native perspective. The rotated data simulates a characteristic distortion.).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shameli (US 20200201022) in view of Von (US 20140179997) and further in view of Sasaki (US 20140204187).
Regarding claim 8, Shameli does not disclose wherein the controller is configured to generate the modified source image data by generating a virtual mask superimposed over a field stop mask of the scope about the field of view.
Sasaki is directed to an endoscope image processing device (abstract) and teaches wherein the controller is configured to generate the modified source image data by generating a virtual mask (Boundary region BR; L1 is an extraction boundary line for extracting the front-field-of-view image FR; FIG. 6A; para [0070], [0071]) superimposed over a field stop mask of the scope about the field of view (A side-field-of-view image SR; para [0070]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Shameli to define a region in accordance with the teaching of Sasaki so that the defined region could be used for generating the modified image data. Further, the defining a region would help applying an algorithm for data modification.
Claim(s) 9-12, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shameli (US 20200201022) in view of Von (US 20140179997) and further in view of Morales (US 20170230558).
Regarding claim 9, Shameli does not expressly disclose wherein
the at least one modified source image data comprises a first modified image data and a second modified image data, wherein
the controller is further configured to: selectively generate second image data demonstrating a second subset of the source image data including a second portion of the field of view simulating a third inclination angle.
Morales is directed to improved exposure control processes, devices, and systems are provided for wide angle lens imaging systems that suffer from image distortion (abstract) and teaches the at least one modified source image data comprises a first modified image data and a second modified image data (Different image data set are generated for different views such as 0 degree – 115 degrees. FIG. 1A; The optical center 160 is angularly offset from the longitudinal axis 6 of the endoscope 100 and covers a viewing range 120 of 160 degrees from −45 to +115 degrees relative to the longitudinal axis. Para [0028]- [0029]),
wherein the controller is further configured to: selectively generate second image data demonstrating a second subset of the source image data including a second portion of the field of view simulating a third inclination angle (Different image data set are generated for different views such as 0 degree – 115 degrees. FIG. 1A; The optical center 160 is angularly offset from the longitudinal axis 6 of the endoscope 100 and covers a viewing range 120 of 160 degrees from −45 to +115 degrees relative to the longitudinal axis. Para [0028]- [0029]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Shameli to include a plurality of view for collecting different set of data in accordance with the teaching of Morales so that wide range of field could be covered for a wide range of inclination angles.
Regarding claim 10, Shameli, as modified, teaches wherein the first inclination angle is approximately 45 degrees offset from a scope axis of the scope (Morales: The optical center 160 is angularly offset from the longitudinal axis 6 of the endoscope 100 and covers a viewing range 120 of 160 degrees from −45 to +115 degrees relative to the longitudinal axis. Para [0028]- [0029]).
Regarding claim 11, Shameli as modified teaches wherein the controller is further configured to:
selectively output the source image data, the first modified image data simulating the second inclination angle, and the second modified image data simulating the third inclination angle to the display screen (Morales: Field of view 102, 106, 104 correspond to different data set; FIG. 4B; The examiner notes that the first image data, and the second image data are not defined in the claim regarding how they are obtained.).
Regarding claim 12, Shameli, as modified, teaches wherein the second inclination angle is 30" and the third inclination angle is 70" (Morales: The optical center 160 is angularly offset from the longitudinal axis 6 of the endoscope 100 and covers a viewing range 120 of 160 degrees from −45 to +115 degrees relative to the longitudinal axis. Para [0028]- [0029]).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shameli (US 20200201022) in view of Von (US 20140179997) and further in view of He (US 20230262347) and non-patent literature entitled “Generalized dynamic range compression algorithm for visualization of chest CT images.”
Regarding claim 15, Shameli does not expressly disclose wherein the image correction algorithm comprises at least one of an auto-exposure algorithms and a high dynamic range algorithm.
He is directed to apparatus determining a color-skew metric for an image frame captured by an image capture system (abstract) and wherein the image correction algorithm comprises at least one of an auto-exposure algorithms (An auto-exposure algorithm may attempt to brighten up images that look dark by virtue of their skewed chrominance toward a naturally dark-looking color and not by virtue of inadequate illumination of the scene. Para [0023]).
Non-patent literature entitled “Generalized dynamic range compression algorithm for visualization of chest CT images,” is directed to applying algorithm to process images and teaches wherein the image correction algorithm comprises at least one of a high dynamic range algorithm (dynamic range compression (DRC) processing algorithm that can be applied to chest CT images; abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Shameli to include an auto-exposure algorithm so that images may be brighten up after image processing (para [0023]). Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Shameli to include a dynamic range compression algorithm in the image processing algorithm so that high frequency signals can be enhanced (abstract of the non-patent literature).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shameli (US 20200201022) in view of Von (US 20140179997) and further in view of Christian (US 20220079415).
Regarding claim 7, Shameli does not expressly disclose wherein the controller is further configured to: generate a simulated mask enclosed about a perimeter of the first image, wherein the simulated mask includes an orientation cue identifying a direction of the rotation relative to the first image data demonstrating the first portion of the field of view simulating a second inclination angle.
Christian is directed to a visualization system (abstract) and teaches wherein the controller is further configured to: generate a simulated mask (round second image 320; FIG. 6; Para [0176]) enclosed about a perimeter of the first image (image 320 is about the perimeter of the first image 310; FIG.6), wherein the simulated mask includes an orientation cue (viewing axis is pointed by marking 321 in the image 320; Para [0176]) identifying a direction of the rotation relative (The examiner notes that the relative rotation is undefined in the claim.) to the first image data demonstrating the first portion of the field of view simulating a second inclination angle (viewing axis is pointed by marking 321 in the image 320; Para [0176]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Shameli to include an image with a cue (such as image 320) in accordance with the teaching of Christian so that a user would know which direction the field of view would be pointing during use of the endoscope.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments submitted on 05/26/2026 have been fully considered. The previous rejection dated 02/25/2026 have been withdrawn. In view of amendment, a new rejection has been made. See rejection set forth above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-6, 19, are 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.
Reasons for Allowance
Claim 4
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
The prior art of record fails to explicitly teach or fairly suggest, alone or in combination, a surgical imaging system wherein the controller is further configured to: dewarp the first subset of the source image data generating normalized image data; and warp or modify the normalized image data in the first subset generating the modified source image data simulating a second inclination angle, along with the remaining features of claims 3, 2, and 1.
The closest art Davidson (US 20140003706) teaches dewarping the first subset of the source image data generating normalized image data; and warping or modifying the normalized image data in the first subset generating the modified source image data (FIG. 1). However, the modified normalized image does not simulate a second inclination angle. And there is no motivation to add such angle in Davidson.
Accordingly, claim 1 is allowed.
Claim 19 include similar inventive feature as claim 1.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 SHANKAR R GHIMIRE whose telephone number is (571)272-0515. The examiner can normally be reached 8 AM - 5 PM.
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.
/SHANKAR RAJ GHIMIRE/Examiner, Art Unit 3795
/ANHTUAN T NGUYEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3795
7/8/26
Prosecution Insights