DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-19 are pending.
Claim Objections
Claims 18 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim term “Providing” should not be capitalized. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-6, 10-11, 14-15, and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nahm et al. (US 20150230715 A1, 2015-08-20) (hereinafter “Nahm”).
Regarding claims 1-6, 10-11, 14-15, and 17-19, Nahm teaches a system for an imaging device of a surgical imaging system (e.g., [0068]), the system comprising one or more processors and one or more storage devices (e.g., [0080]), wherein the system is configured to: determine a first set of settings being suitable for using the imaging device in a surgical procedure; determine a second set of settings currently being used; and provide a signal indicating a difference between the first and second set of settings, the signal comprising information on at least one setting to adjust to obtain the first set of settings. See, e.g., Fig. 5 and [0094]-[0097] (disclosing different selectable ROIs as first and second set of settings with a difference signal construed to be the signal/transformation required to switch to the first set of settings) (as recited in claim 1); wherein the signal indicating the difference between the first and second set of settings is a display signal, the display signal comprising a visual representation of the information on the at least one setting to adjust to obtain the first set of settings (e.g., [0094]-[0097], Fig 5) (as recited in claim 2); wherein the system is configured to provide a digital view on a surgical site as part of the display signal, with the digital view being based on imaging sensor data of an optical imaging sensor of the imaging device, and to provide the visual representation of the information on the at least one setting to adjust to obtain the first set of settings overlaid over the digital view (e.g., [0094]-[0097], Fig 5) (as recited in claim 3); wherein the system is configured to determine an area of interest for the surgical procedure within the imaging sensor data, and to generate the display signal such, that the information on the at least one setting to adjust is shown outside the area of interest (e.g., [0094]-[0097], Fig 5) (as recited in claim 4); wherein the system is configured to track a progress of the surgical procedure, and to determine the first set of settings based on the progress of the surgical procedure (e.g., Figs. 5, 7; [0103]) (as recited in claim 5); wherein the progress of the surgical procedure comprises a plurality of steps, wherein the system comprises information on settings being suitable during the respective steps of the surgical procedure (e.g., Figs. 5, 7; [0103]) (as recited in claim 6); wherein the first and second set of settings comprise one or more of the group of a working distance of the imaging device, an illumination provided by an illumination system of the surgical imaging system, a zoom level of the imaging device, and an aperture of the imaging device (e.g., [0094]-[0097], Fig 5) (as recited in claim 10); wherein the system is configured to generate the signal indicating the difference between the first and second set of settings for the first subset of settings, and to automatically adjust the second subset of settings based on the first set of settings (e.g., [0094]-[0097], Fig 5) (as recited in claim 11); comprising an imaging device and the system according claim 1 (as discussed above) (as recited in claim 14); wherein the surgical imaging system is a surgical microscope system, and the imaging device is a microscope (e.g., [0094]-[0097], Fig 5) (as recited in claim 15); wherein the surgical imaging system is a surgical exoscope system and the imaging device is an exoscope (e.g., [0094]-[0097], Fig 5) (as recited in claim 17); a method for an imaging device of a surgical imaging system, the method comprising: determining a first set of settings being suitable for using the imaging device in a surgical procedure; determining a second set of settings currently being used; and Providing a signal indicating a difference between the first and second set of settings, the signal comprising information on at least one setting to adjust to obtain the first set of settings (e.g., [0094]-[0097], Fig 5) (as recited in claim 18); a non-transitory, computer readable medium comprising a program code for performing the method according to claim 18 when the computer program is executed on a processor (e.g., [0094]-[0097], Fig 5) (as recited in claim 19).
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.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 12 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nahmin view of Barral et al. (US 20190110855 A1, 2019-04-18) (hereinafter “Barral”).
Regarding claims 12 and 16, Nahm teaches a system for an imaging device of a surgical imaging system, except wherein the system is configured to adapt the first set of settings using a machine-learning model being trained to reflect a preference of a specific surgeon, or except wherein the surgical imaging system is a surgical endoscope system, and the imaging device is an endoscope.
Barral teaches system configured to adapt the first set of settings using a machine-learning model being trained to reflect a preference of a specific surgeon. See, e.g., [0044]. Barral also teaches a surgical imaging system as a surgical endoscope system, and the imaging device is an endoscope. See, e.g., [0018]. See also [0015]-[0017] (disclosing using a first set of settings associated with a pre-operative image as reference and a second set of settings associated with images acquired during the operation).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Barral with the invention taught by Nahmin such that wherein the system is configured to adapt the first set of settings using a machine-learning model being trained to reflect a preference of a specific surgeon (as recited in claim 12); wherein the surgical imaging system is a surgical endoscope system, and the imaging device is an endoscope (as recited in claim 16) in order to improve the usability of the system based on its specific application.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-9 and 13 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 prior art of record does not teach or suggest the claimed invention of a system for an imaging device of a surgical imaging system comprising the recited elements, including wherein the system is configured to select an objective for determining the first set of settings according to the progress of the surgical procedure, and to determine the first set of settings based on the objective (as recited in claim 7); wherein the system is configured to sweep values of one or more settings of the set of settings, and to evaluate the resulting optical performance in view of the objective, to determine the first set of settings (as recited in claim 8); wherein the objective being selected relates to a quality of a representation of fluorescence emissions in imaging sensor data of an optical imaging sensor of the imaging device(as recited in claim 9); wherein the system is configured to track an activity of a surgeon using imaging sensor data of an optical imaging sensor of the imaging device, to detect a period of inactivity of the surgeon, and to provide the signal indicating the difference between the first and second set of settings when a period of inactivity of the surgeon is detected (as recited in claim 13).
For these reasons the claims are believed to be allowable over the art of record.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCOTT T LUAN whose telephone number is (571)270-1860. The examiner can normally be reached on 9am-5pm, M-F (generally).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Gary Jackson, can be reached on 571-272-4697. 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.
Scott Luan, Ph.D.
/SCOTT LUAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3792