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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to Application No. 18/635,837 filed 04/15/2024. Claims 1-15 are pending and have been examined.
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 04/15/2024 and 05/04/2025 were considered by the examiner.
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.
Claims 1, 4, 6-8, 10, 11, 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ujvari et al. (US 2024/0070869), herein Ujvari, in view of Joshi et al. (US 2017/0347139), herein Joshi.
Consider claim 1, Ujvari clearly teaches a medical apparatus for monitoring a source image stream with a plurality of successive source images, (Fig. 2, [0046], [0051]) the apparatus comprising:
a processing device designed to receive the source image stream and superimpose a line of a defined test pattern on the source images of the source image stream, with the test pattern rotating continuously according to a defined specification over the temporal progression of the source images, and to transmit the source images having the superimposed line, as transmission images of a transmission image stream; (Figs. 1-3: Transmit facility 1 modifies original image data 7 with first marker 6, 17, wherein first marker 6, 17 includes leading and trailing edges 23, 24 and rotates about axis 18 as the image data stream 3 progresses, [0050], [0053]-[0055], [0060].)
a verification device designed to receive the transmission image stream, check a plurality of conditions in relation to the transmission images of the transmission image stream, and output a warning signal if at least one condition is not met, with a second condition being that a rotation of the test pattern according to the defined specification could be identified in these transmission images. (Figs. 1-3: Receive facility 2 receives the image data 7 with first marker 6, 17 and checks if a warning trigger condition 37 is met, including freezing of the video wherein the marker 6, 17 would not rotate, and outputs a warning signal 38 if a condition is met, [0012], [0029], [0056], [0059], [0071]-[0074].)
However, Ujvari does not explicitly teach output a warning signal if at least one condition is not met, with a first condition being that the defined test pattern could be identified at least in a defined percentage of the transmission images.
In an analogous art, Joshi, which discloses a video processing system, clearly teaches output a warning signal if at least one condition is not met, with a first condition being that the defined test pattern could be identified at least in a defined percentage of the transmission images. (Fig. 1: Testing apparatus 105 includes video freeze detection 145, black frame detection 135 and reporting module 165 which outputs an alarm if there are one or more black frames, [0030], [0031], [0048].)
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Ujvari by output a warning signal if at least one condition is not met, with a first condition being that the defined test pattern could be identified at least in a defined percentage of the transmission images, as taught by Joshi, for the benefit of additionally providing a warning when no video image is displayed.
Consider claim 4, Ujvari combined with Joshi clearly teaches the line is embodied in a contrast color which cannot be found, or can only be found to a statistically negligible extent, in the source images. (If image 42 is black-and-white marker 6 would be a color, [0055] Ujvari.)
Consider claim 6, Ujvari combined with Joshi clearly teaches a piece of backup image information is stored for each transmission image of the transmission image stream, the backup image information containing the image information from the respective source image that was overlaid by the line of the test pattern. (The marker 6 is overlaid on the image 3 and the information remains separable, [0055] Ujvari.)
Consider claim 7, Ujvari combined with Joshi clearly teaches having a restoration apparatus, which is designed to restore the line of the test pattern in the transmission image using the associated backup image information and to output the transmission images, restored thus, as presentation images of a presentation image stream. (The marker 6 is overlaid on the image 3 and the information remains separable, [0055] Ujvari.)
Consider claim 8, Ujvari combined with Joshi clearly teaches the test pattern additionally has a straight path which leads radially outward from an origin or center of the test pattern. (Fig. 3: Marker 6, 17 includes leading and trailing edges 23, 24, [0060] Ujvari.)
Consider claim 10, Ujvari combined with Joshi clearly teaches the plurality of conditions include at least one further condition: the line of the test pattern (Fig. 3: First marker 6, 17 includes leading and trailing edges 23, 24, [0060].) is fully identifiable in the transmission image in a defined further percentage. (Fig. 1: Testing apparatus 105 includes video freeze detection 145, black frame detection 135 and reporting module 165 which outputs an alarm if there are one or more black frames, [0030], [0031], [0048] Joshi.)
Consider claim 11, Ujvari combined with Joshi clearly teaches having an output apparatus, which is designed to output the warning signal so that the latter is perceptible in visual, acoustic and/or haptic fashion. (Warning signal 38 includes acoustic, visual or tactile warnings, [0074] Ujvari.)
Consider claim 13, Ujvari combined with Joshi clearly teaches a medical system for monitoring a source image stream with a plurality of successive source images, (Fig. 2, [0046], [0051] Ujvari) comprising:
an imager for creating the source image stream; (Fig. 2: Imaging facility 30, [0051] Ujvari)
an apparatus as set forth in claim 1; (See claim 1) and
a display apparatus designed to output the transmission image stream and reproduce the warning signal, with the processing device being integrated in the imager. (Fig. 2: Display facility 12, [0048], [0058], [0074] Ujvari)
Consider claim 14, Ujvari clearly teaches a method for monitoring a source image stream with a plurality of successive source images, (Fig. 1, [0046]) the method including the following steps:
receiving the source image stream; (Figs. 1, 2: Imaging facility 30 obtains the image 3, [0051].)
superimposing a line of a defined test pattern on the source images of the source image stream, with the test pattern rotating continuously according to a defined specification over the temporal progression of the source images; (Figs. 1-3: Transmit facility 1 modifies original image data 7 with first marker 6, 17, wherein first marker 6, 17 includes leading and trailing edges 23, 24 and rotates about axis 18 as the image data stream 3 progresses, [0050], [0053]-[0055], [0060].)
transmitting the source images, superimposed thus, as transmission images of a transmission image stream; receiving the transmission image stream; (Figs. 1, 2: Image data 7 with first marker 6 is transferred to receive facility 2, [0056].)
checking a plurality of conditions in relation to the transmission images of the transmission image stream; and outputting a warning signal if at least one condition is not met, with a second condition being that a rotation of the test pattern according to the defined specification could be identified in these transmission images. (Figs. 1-3: Receive facility 2 receives the image data 7 with first marker 6 and checks if a warning trigger condition 37 is met, including freezing of the video wherein the marker 6 would not rotate, and outputs a warning signal 38 if a condition is met, [0012], [0029], [0056], [0059], [0071]-[0074].)
However, Ujvari does not explicitly teach outputting a warning signal if at least one condition is not met, with a first condition being that the defined test pattern could be identified at least in a defined percentage of the transmission images.
In an analogous art, Joshi, which discloses a video processing system, clearly teaches outputting a warning signal if at least one condition is not met, with a first condition being that the defined test pattern could be identified at least in a defined percentage of the transmission images. (Fig. 1: Testing apparatus 105 includes video freeze detection 145, black frame detection 135 and reporting module 165 which outputs an alarm if there are one or more black frames, [0030], [0031], [0048].)
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Ujvari by outputting a warning signal if at least one condition is not met, with a first condition being that the defined test pattern could be identified at least in a defined percentage of the transmission images, as taught by Joshi, for the benefit of additionally providing a warning when no video image is displayed.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ujvari et al. (US 2024/0070869) in view of Joshi et al. (US 2017/0347139) in view of Onishi et al. (US 6,636,254), herein Onishi.
Consider claim 12, Ujvari combined with Joshi clearly teaches the processing device.
However, Ujvari combined with Joshi does not explicitly teach invert the transmission images during defined intervals.
In an analogous art, Onishi, which discloses an image processing system, clearly teaches invert the transmission images during defined intervals. (Figs. 38-39B: The image is inverted during the interval when the endoscope is placed substantially perpendicularly, col. 26 line 65 to col. 27 line 45.)
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Ujvari combined with Joshi by invert the transmission images during defined intervals, as taught by Onishi, for the benefit of presenting an optimal view direction to the user during the medical procedure.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 3, 5, 9 and 15 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.
Conclusion
In the case of amending the claimed invention, applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN R SCHNURR whose telephone number is (571)270-1458. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6a-4p.
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, Brian Pendleton can be reached at (571)272-7527. 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.
/JOHN R SCHNURR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2425
Prosecution Insights