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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 3/15/2024 was considered by the examiner.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 12, 13, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Park et al. (US 2024/0115345).
Regarding Claim 1, Park discloses a system for a scientific or surgical optical imaging system, the system comprising one or more processors and one or more storage devices (Fig. 2, controller 222, Paragraphs 0031-0033), wherein the system is configured to:
obtain information on one or more illumination parameters (Paragraph 0060, controller obtains pulse frequency F of the oblique beam 220, Paragraph 0060, lines 1-6) used by an illumination system being separate (Fig. 2, the oblique optics 218 is separate from the digital camera 108b/microscope head 108a/polarization filter 108c, Paragraph 0025 and 0028), from the scientific or surgical optical imaging system from the illumination system; and
determine at least one parameter for using an optical imaging sensor of an imaging device of the scientific or surgical optical imaging system based on the one or more illumination parameters (Paragraph 0060, controller determines that the frame rate at which the video images are captured may be two times the pulse frequency F of the oblique beam 220, Paragraph 0060, lines 1-6).
Regarding Claim 2, Park discloses as is set forth above and further discloses wherein the system is configured to determine at least one of an image processing parameter and an image acquisition parameter (Paragraph 0060, controller determines that the frame rate at which the video images are captured may be two times the pulse frequency F of the oblique beam 220, Paragraph 0060, lines 1-6) based on the one or more illumination parameters.
Regarding Claim 3, Park discloses as is set forth above and further discloses wherein the system is configured to determine at least one of an exposure duration parameter (Paragraph 0060, controller determines that the frame rate, so that the higher the frame rate, the shorter the exposure duration, at which the video images are captured may be two times the pulse frequency F of the oblique beam 220, Paragraph 0060, lines 1-6), a sensitivity parameter, an aperture parameter, a brightness parameter, a shadow recovery parameter, a highlight recovery parameter, and at least one white balance parameter based on the one or more illumination parameters.
Regarding Claim 12, Park discloses as is set forth above and further discloses wherein the system is configured to output a display signal to a display device of the scientific or surgical imaging system (video images displayed on the display device 224, Paragraph 0061, lines 10-13), the display signal being based on the at least one parameter for using the optical imaging sensor (Paragraph 0060, controller determines that the frame rate to capture video images, so that the higher the frame rate, the shorter the exposure duration, at which the video images are captured may be two times the pulse frequency F of the oblique beam 220, Paragraph 0060, lines 1-6)and based on imaging sensor data of the optical imaging sensor.
Regarding Claim 13, Park discloses as is set forth above and further discloses wherein the system is a system for an ophthalmic microscope (Paragraph 0023, lines 1-7), and wherein the system is configured to obtain the information on the one or more illumination parameters from an ophthalmic endo-illumination system (Paragraph 0060, controller obtains pulse frequency F of the oblique beam 220, Paragraph 0060, lines 1-6).
Regarding Claim 14, Park discloses a method for a scientific or surgical optical imaging system (Fig. 2, controller 222, Paragraphs 0031-0033), the method comprising:
obtaining, by the scientific or surgical optical imaging system, information on one or more illumination parameters (Paragraph 0060, controller obtains pulse frequency F of the oblique beam 220, Paragraph 0060, lines 1-6) used by an illumination system being separate (Fig. 2, the oblique optics 218 is separate from the digital camera 108b/microscope head 108a/polarization filter 108c, Paragraph 0025 and 0028) from the scientific or surgical optical imaging system from the illumination system; and
determining at least one parameter for using an optical imaging sensor of an imaging device of the scientific or surgical optical imaging system based on the one or more illumination parameters (Paragraph 0060, controller determines that the frame rate at which the video images are captured may be two times the pulse frequency F of the oblique beam 220, Paragraph 0060, lines 1-6).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (US 2024/0115345) in view of Dewey et al. (US 2016/0250068).
Regarding Claim 15, Park discloses as is set forth above and further discloses the method according to claim 14 (see rejection of claim 14, above), but doesn’t specifically disclose a non-transitory machine-readable storage medium including a program code configured to perform, when executed by a processor.
However, Dewey, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a non-transitory machine-readable storage medium including a program code configured to perform, when executed by a processor (Paragraphs 0175-0177), for the purpose of automating the collection of imaging data of an eye of a patient during surgery.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the method of Park with a non-transitory machine-readable storage medium including a program code configured to perform, when executed by a processor, of Dewey, for the purpose of automating the collection of imaging data of an eye of a patient during surgery.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 5-9, and 10-11 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: with respect to the allowable subject matter, none of the prior art either alone or in combination disclose or teach of the claimed combination of limitations to warrant a rejection under 35 USC 102 or 103.
Specifically, with respect to claim 4, none of the prior art either alone or in combination disclose or teach a system including, as the distinguishing feature(s) in combination with the other limitations, wherein the one or more illumination parameters comprise at least one of an illumination intensity parameter, an illumination angle parameter, and an illumination wavelength parameter.
Specifically, with respect to claim 5, none of the prior art either alone or in combination disclose or teach a system including, as the distinguishing feature(s) in combination with the other limitations, wherein the system is configured to limit a search space for determining the at least one parameter for using the optical imaging sensor based on the one or more illumination parameters, and to determine the at least one parameter based on the limited search space.
Specifically, with respect to claim 10, none of the prior art either alone or in combination disclose or teach a system including, as the distinguishing feature(s) in combination with the other limitations, wherein the system is configured to determine the at least one parameter for using the optical imaging sensor based on an output of a machine-learning model being trained to determine the at least one parameter, wherein the one or more illumination parameters and at least a histogram of imaging sensor data of the optical imaging sensor are used as input to the trained machine-learning model.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Tesar et al. (US 11,154,378), Tesar et al. (US 2017/0020627), Sander (US 2011/0261324), Obrebski et al. (US 2004/0227989), Kuebler (US 2023/0221539), Novak et al. (US 2022/0346650), Berry (US 2009/0054879), Raymond et al. (US 2016/0074125), and Voigt et al. (US 2021/0228284) are cited to show similar systems and methods.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM R ALEXANDER whose telephone number is (571)270-7656. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 AM- 4:00 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, Pinping Sun can be reached on (571) 270-1284. 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.
/WILLIAM R ALEXANDER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872