DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Double Patenting
2. The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Application 18/612,092:
Claims 1 (similarly claim 17): An information processing system comprising:
a processor including hardware, the processor being configured to:
acquire an endoscope image from an endoscope in which a papillary portion appears in the endoscope image;
correct the endoscope image based on correction information which is identified by an organ structure;
determine route information of a lumen based on the corrected endoscope image.
Regarding claim 9: The information processing system of claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to:
generate a display image, in which a route guide image to provide guidance to a route of the lumen leading to the papillary portion is superimposed on the endoscope image that has not been corrected, based on a presumption result of the route information of the lumen, and
control a display device to display the display image.
Application 17/989,108 (U.S. patent pub. 2023/0148847):
Claim 1. An information processing system comprising:
a processor comprising hardware, the processor being configured to:
acquire an endoscope image from an endoscope, the endoscope image showing a papillary portion;
determine route information of a lumen based on the endoscope image, the lumen being at least one of a biliary duct and a pancreatic duct;
generate a display image based on a result of the determination of the route information of the lumen, the display image having a route guide image to provide guidance of showing a route of the lumen leading to the papillary portion superimposed on the endoscope image; and
control a display to display the display image.
Claims 1, 9, and 17 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 9 of copending Application No. 17,989,108 (Gono et al.; U.S. patent pub. 2023/0148847 A1) and further view of Mino et al. (U.S. patent pub. 2023/0123739 A1). The prior art of Gono et al. (application 17,989,108; U.S. patent pub. 2023/0148847) does not teach the feature of “correct the endoscope image based on correction information which is identified by an organ structure.” The prior art of Mino et al. (U.S. patent pub. 2023/0123739 A1) teaches the feature of “correct the endoscope image based on correction information which is identified by an organ structure” (Mino et al.; paragraphs 0013, 0032, 0060, 0080, and 0084-0087, especially paragraph 0087, i.e. image transformations taking place=read as corrections). It would have been obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art to combine the teaching of Mino et al. into the system of Gono et al. since they are analogous in the field of endoscopic imaging. One ordinary skilled in the art would have been motivated to incorporate the teaching of Mino et al. into the system Gono et al. in order to assist in the endoscopic navigation and reduce potential medical mistakes.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. 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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Gono et al. (Application 17/989,108; U.S. patent pub. 2023/0148847 A1) and further in view of Mino et al. (U.S. patent pub. 2023/0123739).
The applied reference has a common assignee with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2).
This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C.102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B); or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement. See generally MPEP § 717.02.
Regarding claim 1: Gono et al. discloses an information processing system (fig. 11) comprising:
a processor including hardware, the processor (fig. 11) being configured to:
acquire an endoscope image from an endoscope in which a papillary portion appears in the endoscope image (fig. 6 element S2011 and paragraph 0102);
determine route information of a lumen based on the corrected endoscope image (fig. 6 elements S2012 and S2013 and paragraph 0102).
The prior art of Gono et al. (application 17,989,108; U.S. patent pub. 2023/0148847) does not teach the feature of “correct the endoscope image based on correction information which is identified by an organ structure.” The prior art of Mino et al. (U.S. patent pub. 2023/0123739) teaches the feature of “correct the endoscope image based on correction information which is identified by an organ structure” (paragraphs 0013, 0032, 0060, 0080, and 0084-0087, I.e. image transformations=correction). It would have been obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art to combine the teaching of Mino et al. into the system of Gono et al. since they are analogous in the field of endoscopic imaging. One ordinary skilled in the art would have been motivated to incorporate the teaching of Mino et al. into the system Gono et al. in order to assist in the endoscopic navigation and reduce potential medical mistakes.
Regarding claim 2: The information processing system of claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to:
acquire organ structural data before surgery (Gono et al.; paragraphs 0008 and 0009 and Mino et al.; paragraphs 0013 and 0030); and
determine the correction information based on the structural data (Mino et al. paragraphs 0013, 0032, 0060, 0080, and 0084-0087).
Regarding claim 3: The information processing system of claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to correct the endoscope image such that the endoscope image has a given positional relationship between an imaging section of the endoscope and the papillary portion (Gono et al.; paragraphs 0008 and 0009 and Mino et al.; paragraphs 0013, 0032, 0060, 0080, and 0084-0087).
Regarding claim 4: The information processing system of claim 1, further comprising a memory that stores a trained model trained by training data, which is a data set including a training endoscope image as input data and the route information of the lumen as correct answer data (Gono et al.; paragraphs 0008, 0009, 0107, and 0114),
wherein the processor is configured to determine the route information of the lumen by inputting the corrected endoscope image to the trained model (Mino et al.; 0081, 0094, and 0095).
Regarding claim 5: The information processing system of claim 4, wherein the trained model is trained by training data based on the training endoscope image captured with an imaging section of the endoscope and the papillary portion in a given positional relationship (Gono et al.; paragraphs 0008 and 0009 and Mino et al.; paragraphs 0013, 0032, 0060, 0080, and 0084-0086).
Regarding claim 6: The information processing system of claim 4, wherein the trained model is trained by training data based on a classification pattern of the papillary portion (Gono et al.; paragraphs 0008 and 0009).
Regarding claim 7: The information processing system of claim 4, wherein the trained model is trained by training data based on an MRCP image (Gono et al.; paragraphs 0008 and 0009).
Regarding claim 8: The information processing system of claim 4, wherein the trained model is trained by training data based on an ultrasound endoscope image (Gono et al.; paragraphs 0008 and 0009).
Regarding claim 9: The information processing system of claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to:
generate a display image, in which a route guide image to provide guidance to a route of the lumen leading to the papillary portion is superimposed on the endoscope image that has not been corrected, based on a presumption result of the route information of the lumen (Gono et al.; paragraphs 0005 and 0104-0116), and
control a display device to display the display image (Gono et al.; paragraph 0124).
Regarding claim 10: The information processing system of claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to:
generate a display image, in which a route guide image to provide guidance to a route of the lumen leading to the papillary portion is superimposed on the corrected endoscope image, based on a presumption result of the route information of the lumen, and control a display device to display the display image (Gono et al. paragraphs 0005, 0104-0116, and 0123-0124).
Regarding claim 11: The information processing system of claim 9, wherein the processor is configured to correct the route guide image to correspond to correction to the endoscope image (Mino et al.; paragraphs 0081 and 0103-0104).
Regarding claim 12: The information processing system of claim 1, wherein the endoscope comprises at least one electrically driven operation selected from a group consisting of an electrically driven forward and backward movement of an insertion section, an electrically driven bending angle of a bending section of the insertion section, and an electrically driven rolling rotation of the insertion section (Gono et al.; paragraphs 0010-0013, 0124, and 0127-0132), and
the processor is configured to control the electrically-driven operation based on control information corresponding to the correction information (Mino et al.; paragraphs 0074-0075).
Regarding claim 13: The information processing system of claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to:
acquire an MRCP image in which a part of the lumen appears, and determine a route of the lumen between the papillary portion and the part of the lumen shown in the MRCP image based on the endoscope image and the MRCP image (Mino et al.; paragraphs 0009, 0024-0027, 0072, and 0111).
Regarding claim 14: The information processing system of claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to:
correct the endoscope image by a correction process including image rotation correction, and determine the route information of the lumen based on the corrected endoscope image (Mino et al.; paragraphs 0087, 0099, and 0100).
Regarding claim 15: The information processing system of claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to:
correct the endoscope image by a correction process including image inclination correction (Gono et al.; paragraphs 0369 and 0373 and Mino et al.; paragraphs 0028, 0081, and 0099), and
determine the route information of the lumen based on the corrected endoscope image (Mino et al.; paragraph 0102-0104).
Regarding claim 16: Gono et al. discloses a medical system (Gono et al.; paragraph 0012) comprising:
the information processing system of claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection); and the endoscope (Gono et al.; abstract and paragraph 0005). Also see claim 1 for obvious and motivation statements.
Regarding claim 17: See claim 1 rejection. Also see claim 1 for obvious and motivation statements.
Regarding claim 18: The information processing method of claim 17, further comprising acquiring organ structural data before surgery and determining the correction information based on the structural data (Gono et al; paragraphs 0118-0119).
Regarding claim 19: The information processing method of claim 17, wherein the correcting is correcting the endoscope image such that the endoscope image has a given positional relationship between an imaging section of the endoscope and the papillary portion (see claim 3).
Regarding claim 20: The information processing method according to claim 17, wherein the determining is determining the route information of the lumen by inputting the corrected endoscope image to a trained model that is stored in a memory and trained by a training data which is a data set including a training endoscope image as input data and the route information of the lumen as correct answer data (see claim 4).
Contact Information
4. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANAND BHATNAGAR whose telephone number is (571)272-7416. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 7:30am-4:00pm.
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, Vu Le can be reached on 571-272-4650. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only.
For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ANAND P BHATNAGAR/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2668
February 16, 2026