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 .
Disposition of Claims
Claims 75, 78-79, 82-83, 86, 88, 90, 93-94, 96-99, 104, 110-111 & 113-115 are pending.
Claims 75, 78-79, 82-83, 86, 88, 90, 94, 98-99 and 104 are rejected.
Claims 93 & 96-97 are objected to.
Claims 110-111 & 113-115 are allowed.
Claims 1-74, 76-77, 80-81, 84-85, 87, 89, 91-92, 95, 100-103, 105-109 & 112 are canceled.
Claim Objections
Claims 113 & 115 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding Claim 113, Claim 110 recites the limitation “one or more markers” on Line 13. Claim 113 further recites the limitation “wherein the marker includes” on Line 1. Examiner kindly requests Applicant amend “wherein the marker includes” to read “where one or more markers includes” to provide consistent claim language throughout.
Regarding Claim 115, Claim 115 recites the limitation “first and second sets of fiducial marks” on Line 12. Claim 115 further recites the limitations “the one or more sets of fiducial marks” and “the fiducial marks” on Lines 20-21 & Line 26, respectively. Examiner kindly request Applicant amend “the one or more sets of fiducial marks” and “the fiducial marks” to read “the first and second sets of fiducial marks” and “the first and second sets of fiducial marks”, respectively, to provide consistent claim language throughout.
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 75, 78-79, 82-83, 86, 88, 90, 94, 98-99 & 104 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McDowall et al. (hereinafter "McDowall") (US 2019/0200848) in view of Joshi et al. (hereinafter "Joshi") (US 2023/0125959).
Regarding Claim 75, McDowall discloses an imaging device (Fig. 2, 100; [0046]) comprising:
a housing (Figs. 2 & 8A, an imaging system comprising 101 and 220 which comprises 920; [0046] & [0157]);
an insertion portion of the housing (Fig. 2, 101; [0046]), the insertion portion having an elongated optical axis (see Fig. 2 & 8A), wherein a first optical signal (Fig. 8A, 903; [0162]) and a second optical signal (Fig. 8A, 902; [0162]) are transmitted along the elongated optical axis (see Fig. 8A), wherein the first optical signal and the second optical signal each have distinct wavelength range ([0163]);
a beam splitter (Fig. 8A, 911; [0160]) configured to deliver the first optical signal to a first imaging unit (Fig. 8A, 921_HS; [0165]) and configured to deliver the second optical signal to a second imaging unit (Fig. 8A, 921_V; [0162]); and
a focusing lens (Fig. 8A, a first lens of 905; [0158]) on an optical path of either the first imaging unit or the second imaging unit (see Fig. 8A), wherein adjustment of the focusing lens is configured to bring an image into focus on both of the first imaging unit and the second imaging unit ([0167]).
McDowall fails to explicitly disclose one or more markers along the elongated optical axis; and wherein adjustment of the focusing lens is configured to bring an image of the one or more markers into focus.
However, Joshi teaches an imaging device (Fig. 2A, 12; [0030]) comprising:
a housing (Fig. 2A, 24; [0036]);
an insertion portion (Fig. 2A, 25; [0036]);
an imaging unit (Figs. 2A & 3, 27; [0036]);
one or more markers (Fig. 4, 39-42; [0039]) along an elongated optical axis (Fig. 4, 45; [0043]); and
a focusing lens (Fig. 3, 34; [0039]) on an optical path of the imaging unit ([0039]), wherein adjustment of the focusing lens is configured to bring an image of the one or more markers into focus on the imaging unit ([0036] & [0039]).
The advantage of the one or more markers is to correct any misalignment between the insertion portion and the image units (Joshi; [0046]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to someone with ordinary skill in the art to modify the imaging device as disclosed by McDowall, to include the one or more markers taught by Joshi, to correct any misalignment between the insertion portion and the image units (Joshi; [0046]).
Regarding Claim 78, McDowall, as previously modified by Joshi, teaches the imaging device of Claim 75. McDowall further discloses wherein the first imaging unit comprises an infrared imaging sensor (Fig. 8A, 921_HS is an infrared sensor; [0166]).
Regarding Claim 79, McDowall, as previously modified by Joshi, teaches the imaging device of Claim 75. McDowall further discloses wherein the first imaging unit, the second imaging unit, or both comprises a camera or a sensor for RGB imaging (Fig. 8A, 921_V is a visible light sensor; [0164]).
Regarding Claim 82, McDowall, as previously modified by Joshi, teaches the imaging device of Claim 75. McDowall further discloses wherein the distinct wavelength ranges of the first and second optical signals are separated by a threshold wavelength between about 700 nanometers nm to about 800 nm ([0163] & [0169]).
Regarding Claim 83, McDowall, as previously modified by Joshi, teaches the imaging device of Claim 75. McDowall further discloses wherein the first optical signal is a laser speckle imaging signal ([0166]), and wherein the second optical signal is an RGB imaging signal ([0164]).
Regarding Claim 86, McDowall, as previously modified by Joshi, teaches the imaging device of Claim 75. McDowall further discloses wherein the imaging units have different imaging modalities selected from a group consisting of an infrared imaging sensor for laser speckle imaging (Fig. 8A, 921_HS is an infrared sensor; [0166]), a fluorescence imaging sensor for fluorescence imaging (Fig. 8A, 921_V is a visible light sensor and thus capable of fluorescence imaging; [0164]), a mosaic sensor for hyperspectral imaging, a short wave infrared (SWIR) sensor for SWIR imaging, and a depth sensor for depth imaging.
Regarding Claim 88, McDowall, as previously modified by Joshi, teaches the imaging device of Claim 75. McDowall further discloses further comprising a processor (Fig. 2, 240; [0072]) operatively coupled to either imaging unit or both and configured to process one or more images of a surgical scene to produce a visualization of the surgical scene ([0073]).
Regarding Claim 90, McDowall, as previously modified by Joshi, teaches the imaging device of Claim 88. McDowall further discloses wherein the visualization of the surgical scene includes a dynamic overlay of images based on one or more imaging modalities selected from a group consisting of a laser speckle image, a depth image, a fluorescence image, and an RGB image of the surgical scene ([0045]).
Regarding Claim 94, McDowall, as previously modified by Joshi, teaches the imaging device of Claim 75. Joshi further teaches wherein the image of the one or more markers comprises a notch or a fiducial marker ([0039]) .
Regarding Claim 98, McDowall, as previously modified by Joshi, teaches the imaging device of Claim 75. McDowall further discloses wherein the elongated optical path comprises one or more lenses for adjusting a field of view or an angle of view of a surgical scene (Fig. 8A, a second lens of 905; [0158]).
Regarding Claim 99, McDowall, as previously modified by Joshi, teaches the imaging device of Claim 75. McDowall further discloses wherein the elongated optical path comprises one or more rod lenses or objective assemblies (Fig. 8A, 905; [0158]).
Regarding Claim 104, McDowall, as previously modified by Joshi, teaches the imaging device of Claim 75. McDowall further discloses wherein an elongated portion of the optical path includes one or more optical filters (Fig. 8A, 940; [0164]).
Allowable Subject Matter & Reasons for Allowance
Claims 93 & 96-97 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.
Claims 110-111 & 113-115 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter and allowance:
Regarding Claim 93, McDowall, as previously modified by Joshi, teaches the imaging device of Claim 75. McDowall, as previously modified by Joshi, fails to explicitly disclose wherein a field of view of an image from the first imaging unit comprises the image of the one or more markers configured to aid in positioning or alignment of the first imaging unit relative to the second imaging unit.
Regarding Claim 110, McDowall, as previously modified by Joshi, teaches the imaging device (see the rejections above for common limitations, not reproduced herein for the sake of brevity) except for wherein the second imaging unit is releasably attached to the system.
Given that the first imaging unit 921_HS and the second imaging unit 921_V are both housed in a common camera housing 920, modifying McDowall to make the second imaging unit 921_V releasably attachable would destroy the functionality of the imaging device of McDowall.
Regarding Claim 115, McDowall, as previously modified by Joshi, teaches the imaging device (see the rejections above for common limitations, not reproduced herein for the sake of brevity) except for wherein the second imaging unit is releasably attached to the system; first and second sets of fiducial marks along the elongated optical axis, wherein the first set of fiducial marks has finer or narrower notches as compared to the second set of fiducial marks, and wherein differences in resolution of the notches between the first set of fiducial marks and the second set of fiducial marks are used to determine an adjustment needed to focus; and wherein the image processor is configured to determine the adjustment needed to focus based on the differences in resolution of the notches of the fiducial marks.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 2022/0021807; US 2021/0144345; US 2020/0405152; US 2020/0315432; US 2019/0335104; US 2019/0159663; US 2018/0116520; and US 2016/0022126.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHEN FLOYD LONDON whose telephone number is (571)272-4478. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 10:00 am ET - 6:00pm ET.
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, MICHAEL CAREY can be reached at (571)270-7235. 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.
/STEPHEN FLOYD LONDON/Examiner, Art Unit 3795
/MICHAEL J CAREY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3795