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’s (IDS) were submitted on 03/20/2024, 04/03/2024 & 06/30/2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
In regards to the independent claims, the following limitation is unclear “calculating displacement vector data that only or predominantly reproduce a movement of the image sensor, but do not, or only to a minor degree, reproduce a movement within the object field”. The terms/elements “predominantly” and “minor” are vague and unclear. These terms are not further explained or defined in the specification.
In regards to claim 9, the limitation in part “transmitting them to the display” is unclear. What is meant by “them”? Please clarify.
Claim 5 recites the limitation in part "used in step d1)". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 1, 9 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iida et al. (herein after will be referred to as Iida) (US 20190107699) in view of Yasuda et al. (herein after will be referred to as Yasuda) (US 20210006721) and in further view of Gaizman et al. (herein after will be referred to as Gaizman) (US 20200412954).
Regarding claim 1, Iida discloses
A method for video stabilization in a medical visualization system, in particular a surgical microscope, comprising an image sensor, wherein the method includes the following steps: [See Iida [0002] Surgical microscope. Also, see 0017, imaging section and stabilization.]
a) providing the medical visualization system and a movement detecting device that detects a movement of the image sensor and generates corresponding sensor movement data, [See Iida [0129] Microscope with movement detecting sensor.]
Iida does not explicitly disclose
b) capturing an object field and generating video data of the object field by means of the image sensor and generating image movement data by evaluating the video data, and
c) correcting the video data, comprising c1) calculating displacement vector data that only or predominantly reproduce a movement of the image sensor, but do not, or only to a minor degree, reproduce a movement within the object field, with the combined use of the sensor movement data and the image movement data,
wherein the image movement data which reproduce movement changes in the object field are weighted and/or filtered on the basis of the sensor movement data, and
c2) correcting the video data by means of the displacement vector data.
However, Yasuda does disclose
b) capturing an object field and generating video data of the object field by means of the image sensor and generating image movement data by evaluating the video data, and [See Yasuda [Fig. 5] Motion vector detection unit (1007).]
c) correcting the video data, comprising c1) calculating displacement vector data that only or predominantly reproduce a movement of the image sensor, but do not, or only to a minor degree, reproduce a movement within the object field, with the combined use of the sensor movement data and the image movement data, [See Yasuda [0066] Subtract the motion vector signal from the shake detection signal and outputs the resulting signal.]
c2) correcting the video data by means of the displacement vector data. [See Yasuda [Fig. 5] Lens shake stabilization drive unit using the resulting signal.]
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to modify the method by Iida to add the teachings of Yasuda, in order to improve upon image stabilization while using a sensor [See Yasuda [0009]].
Iida (modified by Yasuda) do not explicitly disclose
wherein the image movement data which reproduce movement changes in the object field are weighted and/or filtered on the basis of the sensor movement data, and
However, Gaizman does disclose
wherein the image movement data which reproduce movement changes in the object field are weighted and/or filtered on the basis of the sensor movement data, and [See Gaizman [0002] Combined EIS and OIS. Also, see 0005, perform EIS based on the EIS filter, wherein the EIS filter is based on the OIS information.]
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to modify the method by Iida to add the teachings of Gaizman, in order to improve upon image stabilization [See Gaizman [0043-0044]].
Regarding claim 9, see examiners rejection for claim 1 which is analogous and applicable for the rejection of claim 9. Furthermore, Iida discloses
a display [See Iida [Fig. 1] Display (320).]
Regarding claim 15, Iida (modified by Yasuda and Gaizman) disclose the system as claimed in claim 9. Furthermore, Iida discloses
characterized in that the movement detecting device comprises at least one of the following devices: a single-axis to six-axis acceleration sensor in a fixed location relative to the image sensor, a single-axis to six-axis inertial measurement system in a fixed location relative to the image sensor, a vicinity camera in a fixed location relative to the image sensor, a tracking system directly or indirectly monitoring the image sensor, a pattern projector in a fixed location relative to the image sensor, which projects a pattern onto the object captured by the image sensor, a tracking system directly or indirectly monitoring the object, a pupil tracker and a second image sensor that looks at the object at a stereo angle. [See Iida [0129] Acceleration sensor.]
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-4, 6-8 and 10-14 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.
Claim 5 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20240296569
US 20230144310
US 20100118156
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES T BOYLAN whose telephone number is (571)272-8242. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7am-3pm.
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, JAMIE ATALA can be reached at 571-272-7384. 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.
/JAMES T BOYLAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2486