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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 6, 10-13, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moretti (US 2022/0280028 A1) in view of Amling (US 2007/0030345 A1), and further in view of Un (US 2024/315544 A1).
Claim 1, Moretti teaches an imaging device (Fig. 1) for capturing images viewed from an optical viewing device, the imaging device comprising:
a housing for attachment to the optical viewing device (housing; paragraph 0022 and Fig. 1);
a camera for capturing the images through an eyepiece of the optical viewing device (imaging sensor; paragraph 0022); and
a display screen for displaying the images captured by the camera (display 130 to display captured image; paragraph 0022)
at least one processing device housed inside the housing (processor 212; Fig. 2); and
at least one computer-readable data storage device storing software instructions that, when executed by the at least one processing device (computer-executable instructions; paragraph 0053), cause the at least one processing device to:
detect attachment to the optical viewing device (detect attachment of an imaging module; paragraph 0040);
determine a type of the optical viewing device (determine the type of imaging module; paragraph 0040); and
adjust at least one aspect of the imaging device based on the type of the optical viewing device (different machine learning models are used based on the attached device; paragraph 0040-0041), but
Moretti is silent regarding wherein the at least one aspect includes a zoom of the camera that is adjusted to match an optical image size associated with the type of the optical viewing device.
Amling teaches wherein a parameter of a camera is automatically adjusted to match the type of the optical viewing device (video camera identifies an attached endoscope and automatically sets system parameters in accordance with certain endoscope parameters; paragraph 0002).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have used the teaching of Amling with that of Moretti in order to reduce the necessity for adjustment and alignment of an endoscope and to reduce electromagnetic interference (see abstract and paragraph 0015 of Amling).
Moretti in view of Amling is silent regarding wherein the parameter that is adjusted is the zoom of a camera.
Un teaches wherein an otoscope attachment can automatically adjust zoom to optimize image capture (paragraphs 0025, 0085).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have used the teaching of Un with that of Moretti and Amling in order to offer a user-friendly solution for examination needs (see paragraph 0025 of Un).
Claim 3, Moretti further teaches wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processing device, further cause the at least one processing device to:
determine the type of the optical viewing device based on the images (determining of the type of attachment can be made based on image data; paragraph 0040).
Claim 6, Moretti further teaches wherein adjust the at least one feature includes selecting a workflow for display on the display screen (image analysis on display 130; paragraph 0030) based on the type of instrument head (image processing workflow is selected based on the detected module type; paragraph 0041).
Claim 10, Moretti further teaches wherein the type of the optical viewing device includes an otoscope, an ophthalmoscope, or a dermatoscope (device can function as an otoscope; paragraph 0038).
Claim 11, Moretti teaches a method of capturing images from an optical viewing device, the method comprising:
detecting attachment to the optical viewing device (detect attachment of an imaging module; paragraph 0040);
determining a type of the optical viewing device (determine the type of imaging module; paragraph 0040); and
adjusting at least one aspect based on the type of the optical viewing device (different machine learning models are used based on the attached device; paragraph 0040-0041).
Moretti is silent regarding wherein the at least one aspect includes a zoom of the camera that is adjusted to match an optical image size associated with the type of the optical viewing device.
Amling teaches wherein a parameter of a camera is automatically adjusted to match the type of the optical viewing device (video camera identifies an attached endoscope and automatically sets system parameters in accordance with certain endoscope parameters; paragraph 0002).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have used the teaching of Amling with that of Moretti in order to reduce the necessity for adjustment and alignment of an endoscope and to reduce electromagnetic interference (see abstract and paragraph 0015 of Amling).
Moretti in view of Amling is silent regarding wherein the parameter that is adjusted is the zoom of a camera.
Un teaches wherein an otoscope attachment can automatically adjust zoom to optimize image capture (paragraphs 0025, 0085).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have used the teaching of Un with that of Moretti and Amling in order to offer a user-friendly solution for examination needs (see paragraph 0025 of Un).
Claim 12, Moretti further teaches detecting the type of the optical viewing device based on the images (determining of the type of attachment can be made based on image data; paragraph 0040).
Claim 13, Moretti further teaches detecting the type of the optical viewing device based on a wireless signal received from the optical viewing device (receiving a value for determining the attachment type can be wireless; paragraph 0040).
Claim 16, Moretti further teaches selecting a workflow based on the type of the optical viewing device (image processing workflow is selected based on the detected module type; paragraph 0041).
Claim(s) 5 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moretti in view of Amling and Un, and further in view of Perkins (US 2021/0361241 A1).
Claim 5, Moretti in view of Amling and Un teaches the imaging device of claim 1, but is silent regarding wherein adjust the at least one feature includes centering the images displayed on the display screen based on the type of instrument head.
Perkins teaches wherein a device (Fig. 2) may be adjusted such that at least one feature includes centering the images displayed on the display screen based on the type of instrument head (adjustments can be made to accurately center the image 149A of an optical target 118A on a display 144A; paragraph 0091).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the teaching of Perkins with that of the cited prior art in order to place a viewing device in the same position as the viewer’s eye for enhanced operation and versatility (see paragraph 0013 and 0115 of Perkins).
Claim 15, Moretti in view of Amling and Un teaches the method of claim 11, but is silent regarding:
centering the images on a display screen based on the type of the optical viewing device.
Perkins teaches wherein a device (Fig. 2) may be adjusted for centering the images on a display screen based on the type of the optical viewing device (adjustments can be made to accurately center the image 149A of an optical target 118A on a display 144A; paragraph 0091).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the teaching of Perkins with that of the cited prior art in order to place a viewing device in the same position as the viewer’s eye for enhanced operation and versatility (see paragraph 0013 and 0115 of Perkins).
Claim(s) 7 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moretti in view of Amling and Un, and further in view of Kohayakawa (US 5,231,460).
Claim 7, Moretti in view of Amling and Un teaches the imaging device of claim 1, but is silent regarding wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processing device, further cause the at least one processing device to:
detect a diopter value selected on the optical viewing device based on the images captured by the camera; and
display the diopter value on the display screen.
Kohayakawa teaches detecting a diopter value selected on the optical viewing device based on the images captured by a camera (selected diopter value is calculated using image pickup device 5; col. 2, lines 35-45 and col. 3, lines 8-10); and
displaying the diopter value (processor 8 displays the calculated diopter value on monitor 7; col. 3, lines 23-24).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the teaching of Kohayakawa with that of the cited prior art in order to provide a highly-accurate measurement and to allow a user to quickly confirm a configuration change on a display screen (see col. 1, lines 25-29 of Kohayakawa).
Claim 18, Moretti in view of Amling and Un teaches the method of claim 11, but is silent regarding:
detecting a diopter value selected on the optical viewing device; and
displaying the diopter value.
Kohayakawa teaches detecting a diopter value selected on the optical viewing device (selected diopter value is calculated; col. 3, lines 8-10); and
displaying the diopter value (processor 8 displays the calculated diopter value on monitor 7; col. 3, lines 23-24).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the teaching of Kohayakawa with that of the cited prior art in order to provide a highly-accurate measurement and to allow a user to quickly confirm a configuration change on a display screen (see col. 1, lines 25-29 of Kohayakawa).
Claim(s) 9 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moretti in view of Amling and Un, and further in view of Nishimura (JP 2006313250 A, see English translation).
Claim 9, Moretti in view of Amling and Un teaches the imaging device of claim 1, but is silent regarding wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processing device, further cause the at least one processing device to:
prevent image capture when attachment to the optical viewing device is not detected.
Nishimura teaches a camera system wherein the camera prevents image capture when attachment to the optical viewing device is not detected (live view operation is prohibited when lens is not attached to the camera, paragraph 5 of page 8 of the English translation).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the teaching of Nishimura with that of the cited prior art in order to prevent dust from adhering to an exposed component of the camera system (see Abstract of Nishimura).
Claim 17, Moretti in view of Amling and Un teaches the method of claim 11, but is silent regarding preventing image capture when attachment of the optical viewing device is not detected.
Nishimura teaches a camera system wherein the camera prevents image capture when attachment to the optical viewing device is not detected (live view operation is prohibited when lens is not attached to the camera, paragraph 5 of page 8 of the English translation).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the teaching of Nishimura with that of the cited prior art in order to prevent dust from adhering to an exposed component of the camera system (see Abstract of Nishimura).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 20 is allowed.
Claims 8 and 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding independent claim 20 and dependent claims 8 and 19, the prior art does not teach or suggest at least one of a secondary camera, a light sensor, and a periscope for displaying a diopter value selected on the optical viewing device, in combination with the remaining limitations of the claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892 attached.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 CHIAWEI A CHEN whose telephone number is (571)270-1707. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 12:00pm - 9:00pm EST.
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, Sinh Tran can be reached at (571)272-7564. 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.
/CHIAWEI CHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2637
Prosecution Insights