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 § 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.
Claim 10 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.
The scope of claim 10 is unclear. The claim recites a non-transitory recording medium having stored therein a program but merely recites the intended use of a computer to execute a method and a preamble without a claim body. The claim fails to set forth an algorithm or instructions.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-6, 9-10, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kimura et al. (WO 2018/138828 – Machine Translation) in view of Shino (US 2022/0337746).
Kimura et al. discloses an endoscopic examination assistance device comprising: a memory (5; memory) storing instructions; and at least one processor (6; CPU) configured to execute the instructions to: acquire an endoscopic image captured by an imaging unit of an endoscope and imaging unit position information indicating a position of the imaging unit of the endoscope within the lumen at a time when the endoscopic image is captured (2; acquisition unit; ); detect a lesion from the endoscopic image (91b; 912; 9121; [0076]; [0079]); determine whether it is an insertion step for inserting the endoscope to a turnaround point in the lumen or a removal step for removing the endoscope from a turnaround point in the lumen (81; 812; 916; [0079]; Fig. 25; insertion operation; return path); and cause a notification device to give notification according to a positional relationship between the imaging unit position information and lesion position information indicating position of a lesion detected in the insertion step, in a case where a result of the determination indicates the removal step ( 4; output unit; warning; [0079]; Fig. 25; position information of the acquired lesion candidate is output; processing unit 9d calculates the removal amount of the medical device based on the detection result from the sensor from the medical device, and the medical device approaches the position of the lesion candidate, based on the calculation result). Kimura et al. does not teach the notification device to display a schematic view illustrating a shape of the lumen, and to display, on the schematic view, a first mark indicating a current position of the imaging unit based on the imaging unit position information and a second mark indicating the position of the lesion based on the lesion position information. However, Shino teaches in the same field of endeavor displaying a first mark (50) indicating the position of the imaging unit ([0068]) and a second mark (51) indicating the position of the lesion ([0068]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided Kimura et al. with the position indicators as taught by Shino in order to indicate the distance between the two positions ([0068]).
With respect to claim 4, Kimura et al. discloses to give notification including an image of the detected lesion, the lesion position information, and a display indicating that the lesion has been detected (912; 9121; biometric information acquisition unit; 9151; processing unit 9d; output unit 4; Figs. 14-15, and 25).
With respect to claim 5, Kimura et al. discloses imaging unit position information, shape information of the medical device, and shape of the intestine of the patient (biological information acquisition unit 9151; processing unit 9d; lumen position estimation unit 9181; 919).
With respect to claim 6, Kimura et al. discloses lesion candidate is identified by performing pattern matching (processing unit 9d; Fig. 25).
With respect to claim 13, Kimura et al. discloses wherein the at least one processor is configured to perform a decision making process to determine whether it is the insertion step or the removal step based on at least one of the endoscopic image and the imaging unit position information ([0021-0022]; [0038]; [0041]).
Claim(s) 3 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kimura et al. (WO 2018/138828 – Machine Translation) in view of Shino (US 2022/0337746) as applied to claim 1, further in view of Demura (US 2023/0165433).
Kimura et al. discloses the subject matter substantially as claimed except for giving notification that a detected lesion has been passed. However, Demura teaches in the same field of endeavor performing image comparison processing between lesion candidate regions at time of insertion and retraction in order to prevention missing lesion candidate regions and reporting missing of a lesion candidate region ([0004]; [0007-0012]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided Kimura et al. with the teachings of Demura in order to prevent and report missing lesion candidates ([0004]; [0007-0012]).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kimura et al. (WO 2018/138828 – Machine Translation) in view of Shino (US 2022/0337746) as applied to claim 1, further in view of Kubota et al. (US 2021/0012886).
Kimura et al. discloses the subject matter substantially as claimed except for using machine learning. However, Kubota et al. teaches in the same field of endeavor it is well known for processing lesion candidates are detected by artificial intelligence techniques such as machine learning ([0049]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided Kimura et al. with machine learning to process lesion candidates as taught by Kubota et al.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-7 and 9-10 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
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 PETER LUONG whose telephone number is (571)270-1609. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-6.
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, Anhtuan T Nguyen can be reached at (571)272-4963. 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.
/PETER LUONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3797
Prosecution Insights