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 .
The current application has the effective filing date of 03/31/2023 according to the priority chain on the record.
Claim Objections
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: “underlinear homogenous” should be amended to “under-linear homogenous”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Such claim limitations are:
“illumination unit” in claims 1, 14 and 15
“imaging unit” in claims 1, 8, 14 and 15
“motion detection module” in claims 1 and 2
“adaptive motion filter module” in claims 1-2, 4-5 and 8
“mapping module” in claims 1, 9 and 12
“pre-processing noise filter module” in claim 8
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claims 1-15 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.
Regarding claim 1, line 10-11, the following limitation is indefinite “a motion detection module configured to determine motion between the tissue and the imaging unit”; it is unclear to the Examiner is meant by motion between tissue and the imaging unit. Specifically, whether this “motion” refers to actual movements (of the tissue), or differences between motion exhibited by the tissue compared to the motion detected by the imaging unit, or something entirely different. For purposes of Examination, it is the Examiner’s best guess that this claim limitation refers to: a motion detection module determine motion in the tissue detected by the imaging unit. This claim needs to be amended for clarity.
To claim 2, the limitation “wherein the weights in the averaging are adapted to the motion determined in the motion detection module”, it is unclear to the Examiner what is meant by “the weights…are adapted to the motion…” It is the Examiner’s best guess that “adapted” refers to “the weights… corresponds to the motion…” or “the weights… are applied to the motion…” This claim needs to be amended for clarity.
Regarding claim 3, the claim recites “wherein the first factor (α) determines the influence of the present fluorescent image (I_fluo_pres) in relation to the previous fluorescent image (I_filt_prev) and the second factor (β) determines the amplification of the previous filtered image (I_filt_prev).” The phraseology of this claim is confusing, as it appears to further define the first and second factor of the weights (from previous claim 2), but the phraseology appears to require a “determining” action step. As such, it is unclear to the Examiner whether these first and second factors are known coefficients, or there is are two separate determining steps involved. It is the Examiner’s best guess that “determining” refers to ‘represents’, such that: “wherein the first factor (α) represents the influence of the present fluorescent image (I_fluo_pres) in relation to the previous fluorescent image (I_filt_prev) and the second factor (β) represents the amplification of the previous filtered image (I_filt_prev).”
Regarding claim 4, the recited equation: I_filt =α⋅I_fluo_pres+(1-α)⋅β⋅I_filt_prev lacks proper antecedent basis in the claim, because the symbol: α and β are defined in claim 3. As such, claim 4 should depend from claim 3, not claim 1, for proper antecedent basis.
Regarding claims 6, 7 and 11, the phrase "preferably" and/or “particularly” render these claims indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Further regarding claim 7, this limitation “the second factor (β)” lacks proper antecedent basis in the claim, because claim 7 depends from claim 4 and 1, which do not mention ‘the second factor. Claim 7 should be amended to depend from claim 3.
I_over=(1-γ(I_filt))⋅I_live+γ(I_filt)⋅color(I_filt)
Regarding claim 13, the recited equation: I_over=(1-γ(I_filt))⋅I_live+γ(I_filt)⋅color(I_filt) lacks proper antecedent basis in the claim, because the symbol: γ is defined in claim 9. As such, claim 13 should depend from claim 9, not claim 1, for proper antecedent basis.
Claim 15 is also rejected as indefinite for reciting “determining motion between the tissue and the imaging unit”; see rationale to claim 1 in this section.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 8, 12, 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yoshino et al. US 2012/0013773 A1 (hereinafter “Yoshino”, cited in IDS).
Regarding claim 1, Yoshino teaches a device for medical imaging of tissue (Fig.1: endoscope apparatus 1) comprising:
an illumination unit (light source 2 with white light source 21; see [0035]) configured to illuminate an area (A) (observed region S) of the tissue by emitting illumination light (white light via white-light filter 24a, [0036, 0050]) containing at least excitation light (excitation light excitation-light filter 24b; [0037, 0050]) which excites fluorophores in the tissue to emit fluorescent light ([0035] “a rotating filter 24 that switches the excitation light and the normal light as light with which the observed region S is irradiated” Also see [0041, 0050]);
an imaging unit (imaging unit 36) configured to capture fluorescent images (I_fluo) and corresponding live images (I_live) of the illuminated area (A) ([0042: last sentence] “the insertable unit 3 includes a reflected-light imaging unit 36 that captures a reflected-light image of the observed region S, and a fluorescence imaging unit 37 that captures a fluorescence image of the observed region S.”);
a processing unit (image processing apparatus 4) configured to receive the fluorescent images (I_fluo) (image from fluorescence image storage unit 42) and the live images (I_live) (image from reflected light image storage unit 41) from the imaging unit (36; see Fig. 1 and [0050]), wherein the processing unit (4) further includes:
a motion detection module (motion vector calculator 43, i.e. 43a and 43b, [0052]) configured to determine motion between the tissue and the imaging unit ([0052: 1st sentence] “motion vector calculator 43 calculates motion vector information between the reflected-light image of the observed region S captured by the reflected-light imaging unit 36, and the fluorescence image of the observed region S captured by the fluorescence imaging unit 37” Also see [0053-0054]);
an adaptive motion filter module (motion vector calculator, i.e. 43c) configured to generate filtered fluorescent images (I_filt) by applying motion based adaptive filtering to the fluorescent images (I_fluo) (also see Fig. 7 and [0061, 0082] normalizing motion vector information); and
a mapping module (alignment processing unit 44) configured to generate overlay images (I_over) by non-linearly mapping the filtered fluorescent images (I_filt) into the live images (I_live) ([0056-0058] the alignment processing unit 44 performs alignment process on the fluorescence image and the reflected-light image of the observed region S so as to present superimposing the images; [0135]); and
a display unit (image display device 5) configured to receive and display the overlay images (I_over) ([0059: last sentence] “…normalized fluorescence image of the observed region S in a manner superimposed on the white-light image of the observed region S”).
Regarding claim 8, Yoshino discloses the device according to claim 1, wherein the processing unit further comprises a pre-processing noise filter module (fluorescence imaging unit 237) configured to: receive the fluorescent images (I_fluo) from the imaging unit, generate pre-filtered fluorescent images (I_prefilt) by applying a noise filter (barrier filter 235) to the fluorescent images (I_fluo) ([0103-0104] blocking light at a wavelength band unnecessary for the fluorescence imaging unit 237), and transmit the pre-filtered fluorescent images (I_prefilt) to the adaptive motion filter module (43), wherein the adaptive motion filter module is configured to apply the adaptive filtering to the pre-filtered fluorescent images (I_prefilt) for generating the filtered fluorescent images (I_filt) ([0105] fluorescent imaging unit 237 performs analogous function to fluorescence imaging unit 37 previously mentioned in claim 1, and the filtered fluorescent image continues to motion vector calculator 43).
Regarding claim 12, Yoshino discloses the device according to claim 1, wherein the mapping module is configured to assign intensity value ranges of the mapped and filtered fluorescent images (I_filt) to different visually distinguishable colors. (see [0050: last sentence] three colors R, B, G; also see [0081] “the output image generating unit 45 can generate a color image of the observed region S capable of emphasizing the lesion K while displaying the blood vessel structure of the observed region S as illustrated in FIG. 11, and display the color image thus generated on the image display device 5.”)
Regarding claim 14, Yoshino discloses device according to claim 1, further comprising an endoscope (endoscope 1) with a distal end and proximal end between which an elongated shaft extends, wherein the illumination unit (2) and/or the imaging unit (36) is positioned at the distal end and/or the proximal end of the endoscope (see Fig. 1 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
593
463
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 15, this claim is rejected by Yoshino, under the same rationale as discussed to claim 1 above and see annotated Fig. 1.
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.
Claims 2-4 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshino as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Xu et al. US 2008/0204600 A1 (hereinafter “Xu”, cited in IDS).
Regarding claim 2, Yoshino discloses the device according to claim 1, wherein the generation of the filtered fluorescent images (I_filt) in the adaptive motion filter module (6) (see rejection to claim 1 above,) involves “perform[ing] averaging process of the motion vector information based on all the pieces of the motion vector information thus obtained to calculate representative motion vector information between the reference image Pi and the target image Pj.”([0076]) Yoshino does not explicitly disclose this involves weighted averaging of a present fluorescent image (I_fluo_pres) and a previous filtered image (I_filt_prev), wherein the weights in the averaging are adapted to the motion determined in the motion detection module.
Xu, a prior art reference in the field of adaptive temporal noise reduction method (Abstract and Background). Xu discloses a method for processing video and image processing for reducing motion in image/video sequences, wherein the filter's output is computed by weight averaging the pixel in the current frame with a succession of second pixels formed from the results of motion detection, motion estimation, motion compensation and noise estimations ([0010-0013]). Also see [0065-0071] regarding weight averaging parameter. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify Yoshino to include the adaptive temporal noise reduction including weighted averaging in view of Xu; the motivation for doing so is because this method uses measurements taken from the input (image/video) data itself to adaptively sense which pixels should be averaged together. (Xu: [0011])
Regarding claim 3, Yoshino in view of Xu discloses the device according to claim 2, Xu further discloses wherein the weights comprising a first factor (α) and a second factor (β), wherein the first factor (α) determines the influence of the present fluorescent image (I_fluo_pres) in relation to the previous fluorescent image (I_filt_prev) and the second factor (β) determines the amplification of the previous filtered image (I_filt_prev). (see Xu:[0065-0071] weight averaging parameter α1 , α2… αn are individually interpreted as “first factor(α )” and “first factor(β )” in the claim)
Regarding claim 4, Yoshino teaches the device according to claim 1, wherein the adaptive motion filter module (43) is configured to successively generate a filtered fluorescent image (I_filt) for a plurality of time steps (see Fig. 15 timing T1, timing T2) wherein the filtered fluorescent image (I_filt) in the present time step becomes the previous filtered image (I_filt_prev) in the next time step (see Fig. 15, excitation light image at timing T2, is based on the white light image from previous time T2 and subsequent timing T3 ); but does not disclose wherein the filtered fluorescent image (I_filt) is calculated as follows for a present time step: I_filt =α⋅I_fluo_pres+(1-α)⋅β⋅I_filt_prev. This is taught in Xu 00051-0052, 0065-0071]
Regarding claim 7, Yoshino in view of Xu discloses the device according to claim [3], wherein the second factor (β) is defined to be in a predetermined range, the predetermined range preferably being between 1.00 and 1.50, preferably between 1.00 and 1.30. (This is taught in Xu: [0071: last sentence] setting for the factors)
Claims 9 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshino as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Takei et al. US 2013/0096376 (hereinafter “Takei”, cited in IDS).
Regarding claim 9, Yoshino discloses the device according to claim 1, wherein the mapping module is configured to apply a non-linear amplification function (γ) on the filtered fluorescent images (I_filt) in the mapping of the filtered fluorescent images (I_filt) into the live images (I_live). Takei, another prior art reference in the analogous art for endoscope comprising a light source adapted for emitting excitation light and reference light (Abstract). Takei further discloses in a normal imaging mode: displaying image signals of R, G, B, each associated with a respective gain amplifier to achieve an intensity ratio of 1:1:1. ([0074]). Takei then discloses a fluorescence imaging mode: color balance is adjusted to achieve a predetermined intensity ratio between the gain of an amplifier for R and the gain of another amplifier that is part of the color balance circuit 36b and receives image signals of fluorescence (as input) ([0075]); this is a non-linear function. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Yoshino in view of Takei to include an amplifier function associated with each of the colors for each timing frame; the motivation for doing so is for compensating for fluorescence intensity. (Takei: [0075])
Regarding claim 13, Yoshino discloses the device according to claim [9], wherein assign intensity value ranges of the mapped and filtered fluorescent images (I_filt) to different visually distinguishable colors ([0050, 0081] images displayed in R B G); but does not disclose wherein the overlay image (I_over) is calculated for every time step as follows: I_over=(1-γ(I_filt))⋅I_live+γ(I_filt)⋅color(I_filt). Takei, another prior art reference in the analogous art for endoscope comprising a light source adapted for emitting excitation light and reference light (Abstract). Takei further discloses in a normal imaging mode: displaying image signals of R, G, B, each associated with a respective gain amplifier to achieve an intensity ratio of 1:1:1. ([0074]). Takei then discloses a fluorescence imaging mode: color balance is adjusted to achieve a predetermined intensity ratio between the gain of an amplifier for R and the gain of another amplifier that is part of the color balance circuit 36b and receives image signals of fluorescence (as input) ([0075]). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Yoshino in view of Takei to include an amplifier function associated with each of the colors for each timing frame; the motivation for doing so is for compensating for fluorescence intensity. (Takei: [0075])
Conclusion
Note to Applicants: Claims 5-6 and 10-11 are not rejected under prior art references, but these claims remain rejected under 35 USC 112(b).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHIRLEY X JIAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7374. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-4:00.
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, Benjamin Klein can be reached at 571-270-5213. 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.
/SHIRLEY X JIAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3792
April 4, 2026
Prosecution Insights