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 § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 1-11 and 14, 15, 20 and 21 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Re claim 1
The limitation of “acquire first medical image data and second medical image data that include a specific region in a subject as medical image data acquired by a medical image acquisition device;”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation and a position designated by the input, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “acquire” in the context of this claim encompasses the user looking at a image and mentally acquire it.
The limitation of acquire first information regarding an imaging position of the first medical image data and second information regarding an imaging position of the second medical image data, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation and a position designated by the input, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “acquire” in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally learning the information.
The limitation of derive an actual size of the specific region based on the first medical image data, the second medical image data, the first information, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation and a position designated by the input, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “derive” in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally determining a size based on the information.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites additional elements – A processing device comprising: a processor, wherein the processor is configured to to perform the abstract idea. The processor in the steps is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a processor to perform the abstract idea amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Re claim 2 The limitations of derive a first size of the specific region in the first medical image data; derive a second size of the specific region in the second medical image data; and derive the actual size based on the first size, the second size, the first information, and the second information, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation and a position designated by the input, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “derive” in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally thinking about the image to derive the information.
The analysis with respect integration into an abstract idea and significantly more is not significantly changed from the claim which this claim depends.
Re claim 3 the limitation of wherein the medical image acquisition device is an endoscope merely describes the medical device which captured the image which are acquired. This merely limits the type of data operated on the examiner notes the endoscope is not actually claimed as part of the analysis. Therefore the analysis is not significantly changed from claim 1.
Re claim 4 The limitation of derive the actual size based on positions of the specific regions in the first medical image data and the second medical image data, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation and a position designated by the input, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “derive” in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally derive the information.
Re claim 5 The limitation of derive the actual size by performing calculation using the first size, the second size, the first information, the second information, and a predetermined constant, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation and a position designated by the input, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “derive” in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally deriving the information.
Re claim 6 The limitation of change the predetermined constant based on the positions of the specific regions, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation and a position designated by the input, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “change the predetermined constant” in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally changing the constant.
Re claim 7 The limitation acquire the first medical image data and the second medical image data, in which a distance between a position of the specific region in the first medical image data and a position of the specific region in the second medical image data is equal to or less than a threshold value. Merely describes the type of data acquired, the examiner notes that the endoscope nor controlling the endoscope to actually capture the images is required. The limitation of acquire the first medical image data and the second medical image data, in which a distance between a position of the specific region in the first medical image data and a position of the specific region in the second medical image data is equal to or less than a threshold value, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation and a position designated by the input, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, acquire in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally looking at image that fit the description above.
Re claim 8 The limitation of derive the actual size based on a type of the endoscope, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation and a position designated by the input, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “derive” in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally deriving the information.
Re claim 9 The limitation of acquire numerical data corresponding to a combination of the first size, the second size, the first information, and the second information from a predetermined data table, and derive the numerical data as the actual size, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation and a position designated by the input, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, acquire and device in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally acquiring and deriving the information.
Re claim 10 The limitation of change the data table based on a type of the endoscope, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation and a position designated by the input, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, change the table in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally deciding to use a different table.
Re claim 11 The limitation of change the data table based on positions of the specific regions in the first medical image data and the second medical image data, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation and a position designated by the input, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, change the table in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally deciding to use a different table.
Re claim 14 The limitation of derive in a case where a plurality of the specific regions are included in the first medical image data and the second medical image data, a size of one region which has a relatively large size among the specific regions as the first size and the second size, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation and a position designated by the input, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, derive in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally deriving the infomation.
Claim 15 contains the same abstract idea as claim 1 from which it discloses.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites additional elements – A processing device comprising: a processor, wherein the processor is configured to to perform the abstract idea and an endoscope. The processor in the steps is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The endoscope is merely a generic endoscope which is an apparatus well known in the art (see Lesch US 2021/0038053 “endoscopes are generally well known” see paragraph 29). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a processor to perform the abstract idea amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Endoscope is a well known medical device. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component and a well known medical device cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Re claim 20
The limitation of “acquiring first medical image data and second medical image data that include a specific region in a subject as medical image data acquired by a medical image acquisition device;”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation and a position designated by the input, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “acquire” in the context of this claim encompasses the user looking at a image and mentally acquire it.
The limitation of acquiring first information regarding an imaging position of the first medical image data and second information regarding an imaging position of the second medical image data, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation and a position designated by the input, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “acquire” in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally learning the information.
The limitation of deriving an actual size of the specific region based on the first medical image data, the second medical image data, the first information, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation and a position designated by the input, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “derive” in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally determining a size based on the information.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements which integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or include significantly more because it does not contain additional elements.
Re claim 21
The limitation of “acquiring first medical image data and second medical image data that include a specific region in a subject as medical image data acquired by a medical image acquisition device;”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation and a position designated by the input, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “acquire” in the context of this claim encompasses the user looking at a image and mentally acquire it.
The limitation of acquiring first information regarding an imaging position of the first medical image data and second information regarding an imaging position of the second medical image data, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation and a position designated by the input, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “acquire” in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally learning the information.
The limitation of deriving an actual size of the specific region based on the first medical image data, the second medical image data, the first information, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation and a position designated by the input, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “derive” in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally determining a size based on the information.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites additional elements – A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a processing program causing a processor to execute a process to perform the abstract idea. The medium in the steps is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a processing program causing a processor to perform a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium to perform the abstract idea amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
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.
Claim(s) 1-8, 15 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SONG et al WO2024191113A1
Re claim 1 Song discloses: A processing device comprising: a processor, wherein the processor is configured to (see paragraph 19 Control unit note that a control unit process information and could be considered a processor)
acquire first medical image data and second medical image data that include a specific region in a subject as medical image data acquired by a medical image acquisition device (see paragraph 56 note that images at a first or second position are taken of a stone by an endoscope);
acquire first information regarding an imaging position of the first medical image data and second information regarding an imaging position of the second medical image data (see paragraph 56 note that the position of capture of the stone is also known see also paragraph 59);
and derive an actual size of the specific region based on the first medical image data, the second medical image data, the first information, and the second information (see paragraph 63 note that the first position data and the position after adjustment need to be known see also paragraph 61 and 62 “After calculating the maximum number of pixels in the horizontal and vertical directions of the stone” “Therefore, a graph having a proportional relationship can be drawn using the distance between the camera (200) and the stone and the maximum number of pixels obtained from two images obtained before and after adjusting the distance” also see paragraph 65 and 66).
Re claim 2 Song discloses derive a first size of the specific region in the first medical image data; derive a second size of the specific region in the second medical image data (see paragraph 61 and 62 “After calculating the maximum number of pixels in the horizontal and vertical directions of the stone (S244), the control unit corresponds this to the X-Y coordinate unit.” “Therefore, a graph having a proportional relationship can be drawn using the distance between the camera (200) and the stone and the maximum number of pixels obtained from two images obtained before and after adjusting the distance” note that the size corresponds to the maximum number of pixels in the vertical and horizontal direction from before and after changing the distance is used ); and derive the actual size based on the first size, the second size, the first information, and the second information (see paragraph 62 “Therefore, a graph having a proportional relationship can be drawn using the distance between the camera (200) and the stone and the maximum number of pixels obtained from two images obtained before and after adjusting the distance” )
Re claim 3 Song discloses wherein the medical image acquisition device is an endoscope. (see paragraph 1),
Re claim 4 Song discloses wherein the processor is configured to further derive the actual size based on positions of the specific regions in the first medical image data and the second medical image data (see paragraph 71-73 “only the stone portion is extracted through image segmentation of the stone image obtained from the original location, and after moving the endoscope fixation distance in the opposite direction of the imaging unit, only the stone portion is extracted again through image segmentation” note that the stone is segmented to determine position in the image and its longitudinal and latitudinal dimensions ).
Re claim 5 Song discloses The wherein the processor is configured to derive the actual size by performing calculation using the first size, the second size, the first information, the second information, (see paragraph 63 note that the first position data and the position after adjustment need to be known see also paragraph 61 and 62 “After calculating the maximum number of pixels in the horizontal and vertical directions of the stone” “Therefore, a graph having a proportional relationship can be drawn using the distance between the camera (200) and the stone and the maximum number of pixels obtained from two images obtained before and after adjusting the distance” see also paragraph 65 and 66) and a predetermined constant (see paragraph 73 longitudinal pixel length may be used to determine the distance in some circumstance further the examiner notes that focal length may be used, the examiner notes that a “constant value” typically cannot change however as disclosed in claim 6 in the present application it is disclosed the the “constant” value can indeed change this language is interpreted in light of this)
Re claim 6 Song discloses wherein the processor is configured to change the predetermined constant based on the positions of the specific regions (see paragraph 70-75 note that the max longitudinal pixel length of the segmented stone will change based on the position of the stone).
Re claim 7 Song discloses wherein the processor is configured to acquire the first medical image data and the second medical image data, in which a distance between a position of the specific region in the first medical image data and a position of the specific region in the second medical image data is equal to or less than a threshold value (see paragraph 64 “After the stone is captured in the basket (120), the wire inside the guide tube (140) is pulled backward. At this time, the distance between the distance measuring part and the rear end of the guide tube is measured by the distance measuring part while the wire is no longer pulled backward, thereby obtaining the above d1 and d2 values” note that the distance between first and second position with be necessarily limited by the distance adjustment amount of the wire the amount of distance adjustment the wire is capable is capable of being adjusted corresponds to the threshold).
Re claim 8 Song discloses wherein the processor is configured to further derive the actual size based on a type of the endoscope (see paragraph 62 note that in some embodiments the determination is based on a type of endoscope using a basket see also paragraph 70 “when the stone is held in the basket (120), the distance between the distance measuring part and the rear end of the guide tube can be measured by the distance measuring part, but when the stone is not held, a different method is required” note that assumptions about the distance are made based on the type of endoscope i.e. and endoscope with a basket).
Re claim 15 Song disclose an endoscope device comprising: the processing device according to claim 3 (see rejection to claim 3); and the endoscope (endoscope see paragraph 19 or 20).
Re claim 20 Song discloses: A processing method comprising
acquiring first medical image data and second medical image data that include a specific region in a subject as medical image data acquired by a medical image acquisition device (see paragraph 56 note that images at a first or second position are taken of a stone by an endoscope);
acquiring first information regarding an imaging position of the first medical image data and second information regarding an imaging position of the second medical image data (see paragraph 56 note that the position of capture of the stone is also known see also paragraph 59);
and deriving an actual size of the specific region based on the first medical image data, the second medical image data, the first information, and the second information (see paragraph 63 note that the first position data and the position after adjustment need to be known see also paragraph 61 and 62 “After calculating the maximum number of pixels in the horizontal and vertical directions of the stone” “Therefore, a graph having a proportional relationship can be drawn using the distance between the camera (200) and the stone and the maximum number of pixels obtained from two images obtained before and after adjusting the distance” also see paragraph 65 and 66).
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.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SONG et al WO2024191113A1 in view of Kaku US 2014/0031628.
Re claim 9 Song discloses acquire numerical data corresponding to a combination of the first size, the second size, the first information, and the second information from a predetermined data graph, and derive the numerical data as the actual size. (see paragraph 63 note that the first position data and the position after adjustment need to be known see also paragraph 61 “After calculating the maximum number of pixels in the horizontal and vertical directions of the stone (S244), the control unit corresponds this to the X-Y coordinate unit” and 62 “After calculating the maximum number of pixels in the horizontal and vertical directions of the stone” “Therefore, a graph having a proportional relationship can be drawn using the distance between the camera (200) and the stone and the maximum number of pixels obtained from two images obtained before and after adjusting the distance” note that the size is based on the relative distance and the number of pixels obtained from the two images).
Song discloses using a graph to determine values related to the size Song does not expressly disclose using a table to store the graph Kaku discloses “The graph is stored as an LUT or the like in a memory (not shown) in advance”. The motivation to combine is to store the relationship in advance (see paragraph 95). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Song and Kaku to reach the aforementioned advantage.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SONG et al WO2024191113A1 in view of Takenouchi US 2022/0383533.
Re claim 14 Song discloses determined a size of region included in the first medical image data and the second medical image data using the first size and the second size (see paragraph 61 and 62 “After calculating the maximum number of pixels in the horizontal and vertical directions of the stone (S244), the control unit corresponds this to the X-Y coordinate unit.” “Therefore, a graph having a proportional relationship can be drawn using the distance between the camera (200) and the stone and the maximum number of pixels obtained from two images obtained before and after adjusting the distance” note that the size corresponds to the maximum number of pixels in the vertical and horizontal direction from before and after changing the distance is used). Song does not expressly disclose derive in a case where a plurality of the specific regions are included a size of one region which has a relatively large size among the specific regions. Takenouchi discloses derive in a case where a plurality of the specific regions are included one region which has a relatively large size among the specific regions (see paragraph 83 note that a largest region is selected as a target region). The motivation to combine is “it is determined whether a region of interest (target object) is suitable for size estimation” see paragraph 8. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Song an Takenouchi to reach the aforementioned advantage.
Claim(s) 12, 13 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SONG et al WO2024191113A1 in view of Fukatsu US 20220361733.
Re claim 12 Song further discloses acquire the first information and the second information comprising position (see paragraph 70 and 71 “When the stone is held in the basket (120), the distance between the distance measuring part and the rear end of the guide tube can be measured by the distance measuring part, but when the stone is not held, a different method is required to obtain this d” ). Song does not expressly disclose wherein a magnetic pattern is formed in an insertion part of the endoscope (see paragraph 34 note that a plurality of source coils produce a magnetic field see also figure 11), and the processor is configured to acquire the first information and the second information based on a magnetic field detected by a detection circuit disposed outside the subject into which the endoscope is inserted from the magnetic pattern (see paragraph 39 note that position of the endoscope is determined by analyzing the magnetic fields from the coil). The motivation to combine is “The insertion shape observing apparatus 40 is configured to generate insertion position information indicating the positions of the respective plurality of source coils 18 acquired as explained above and output the insertion position information to the main body apparatus” (see paragraph 39). One of ordinary skill in the art could have easily used the method of Fukatsu to assist in determining the position relative to the stone as described in Fukatsu. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Fukatsu and Song to reach the aforementioned advantage.
Re claim 13 Song further discloses acquire the first medical image data and the second medical image data, in which a distance between the imaging position of the first medical image data and the imaging position of the second medical image data is equal to or greater than a threshold value (see paragraph 70 and 71 “image obtained from the original location, and after moving the endoscope fixation distance in the opposite direction” note that the first image and second image captured from the device having been moved. Therefore, the distance will necessarily be greater than or equal to zero [i.e. greater than a threshold corresponding to zero]).
Re claim 21 Song discloses A processing method comprising
acquiring first medical image data and second medical image data that include a specific region in a subject as medical image data acquired by a medical image acquisition device (see paragraph 56 note that images at a first or second position are taken of a stone by an endoscope);
acquiring first information regarding an imaging position of the first medical image data and second information regarding an imaging position of the second medical image data (see paragraph 56 note that the position of capture of the stone is also known see also paragraph 59);
and deriving an actual size of the specific region based on the first medical image data, the second medical image data, the first information, and the second information (see paragraph 63 note that the first position data and the position after adjustment need to be known see also paragraph 61 and 62 “After calculating the maximum number of pixels in the horizontal and vertical directions of the stone” “Therefore, a graph having a proportional relationship can be drawn using the distance between the camera (200) and the stone and the maximum number of pixels obtained from two images obtained before and after adjusting the distance” also see paragraph 65 and 66).
Song does not expressly disclose A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a processing program causing a processor to execute a process. Fukatsu discloses A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a processing program causing a processor to execute a process (see paragraph 31). The motivation to combine is to realize the functions using a processor (See paragraph 81). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Fukatsu and Song to reach the aforementioned advantage.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SONG et al WO2024191113A1 in view of Fukatsu US 20220361733 in further view of Ezono WO 2013/034175
Re claim 16 Song discloses all the elements of claim 15 and quire the first information and the second information comprising position (see paragraph 70 and 71 “When the stone is held in the basket (120), the distance between the distance measuring part and the rear end of the guide tube can be measured by the distance measuring part, but when the stone is not held, a different method is required to obtain this d”). Song does not expressly disclose a detection circuit that is disposed on a movement path of the endoscope, wherein an insertion part of the endoscope includes a member that contains metal in which a magnetic pattern is integrally formed, the detection circuit detects a magnetic field from the member, and the processor is configured to acquire the first information and the second information based on the magnetic field detected by the detection circuit. Fukatsu discloses detection circuit that is disposed on a movement path of the endoscope (see paragraph “The insertion shape observing apparatus 40 is configured to detect magnetic fields emitted from the respective source coils 18 provided in the insertion section 11 and acquire positions of the respective plurality of source coils 18 based on intensity of the detected magnetic fields” note that shape observing apparatus may be aligned along the endoscope), wherein an insertion part of the endoscope includes a member in which a magnetic pattern formed(see paragraph 34 note that a plurality of source coils produce a magnetic field see also figure 11 and 1 note that the coils are included in the insertion section), the detection circuit detects a magnetic field from the member (see paragraph 39 “(see paragraph 34 note that a plurality of source coils produce a magnetic field see also figure 11)”), and the processor is configured to acquire position based on the magnetic field detected by the detection circuit (see paragraph 39 “(see paragraph 34 note that a plurality of source coils produce a magnetic field see also figure 11”). The motivation to combine is “The insertion shape observing apparatus 40 is configured to generate insertion position information indicating the positions of the respective plurality of source coils 18 acquired as explained above and output the insertion position information to the main body apparatus” (see paragraph 39). One of ordinary skill in the art could have easily used the method of Fukatsu to assist in determining the position relative to the stone as described in Fukatsu. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of orindary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention combine Fukatsu and Song to reach the aforementioned advantage.
Song and Fukatsu do not expressly disclose metal in which a magnetic pattern is integrally formed. Ezono WO 2013/034175 discloses metal in which a magnetic pattern is integrally formed (see page 7 last paragraph and page 8 first paragraph note that a metal portion which is magnetized can detected to determine position see page 18 last paragraph note that the magnetic component may be magnetize). The motivation to combine is that no power source is necessary to drive the magnet (see paragraph 19 first paragraph). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Song and Fukatsu with Enozo to reach the aforementioned advantage.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SONG et al WO2024191113A1 in view of Fukatsu US 20220361733 in view of Ezono WO 2013/034175 in further view of Pendleton US 2010/0324446
Song Fukatsu and Ezono does not expressly disclose wherein the insertion part includes a soft portion of the endoscope. Pendelton discloses wherein the insertion part includes a soft portion of the endoscope (see paragraph 77 note that the outer layer of the endoscope is made of a soft insulative material). The motivation to combine is “the outer member 20 is preferably soft enough to prevent the outer member 20 from cutting the patient's tissue when the distal end of the device 10 contacts the tissue” see paragraph 77. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Pendleton with Song Fukatsu and Ezono to avoid harming the patient.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SONG et al WO2024191113A1 in view of Fukatsu US 20220361733 in view of Ezono WO 2013/034175 in view of Pendleton US 2010/032446 in further view of Kubokawa US 5,035,231.
Re claim 18
Song further does not expressly disclose herein the soft portion has a cylindrical member having an insulating property Pendleton further discloses wherein the soft portion has a cylindrical member having an insulating property (see paragraph 77 note that the outer layer of the endoscope is made of a soft insulative material). The motivation to combine is “ the outer member 20 is preferably soft enough to prevent the outer member 20 from cutting the patient's tissue when the distal end of the device 10 contacts the tissue” and “the material chosen for the outer member 20 should be electrically insulative to prevent significant electrical current to flow therethrough” see paragraph 77. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Pendleton with Song Fukatsu and Ezono to avoid harming the patient.
Pendelton Song Fukatsu and Ezono do not expressly disclose a first member that contains metal and that is covered with the cylindrical member (see column 10 lines 15-20 “In the thus formed first embodiment, the curvable tubes 13, wires 31, net tubes 12 and 16 and spiral tube 33 are formed of an austenitic stainless steel to be a paramagnetic or feeble magnetic material instead” the first member is one of the tubes ), and a second member that contains metal and that is inserted into the first member, the first member and the second member being cylindrical, (see column 10 lines 15-20 “In the thus formed first embodiment, the curvable tubes 13, wires 31, net tubes 12 and 16 and spiral tube 33 are formed of an austenitic stainless steel to be a paramagnetic or feeble magnetic material instead” the second member couple be one of the tubes that is inside one of the other tubes see figure 2 and 3 ). The motivation to combine is “thus formed first embodiment, the curvable tubes 13, wires 31, net tubes 12 and 16 and spiral tube 33 are formed of an austenitic stainless steel to be a paramagnetic or feeble magnetic material instead of a inartensitic stainless steel to be a usually extensively used ferromagnetic material, the entire endoscope is formed of another material than a ferromagnetic material and therefore, even if the endoscope is used within such ferromagnetic field as of the NMR apparatus, it will be so little influenced as not to be strongly attracted by a ferromagnetic field. Therefore, in case it is used as inserted in a body, even if a ferromagnetic field is applied, it will not be attracted by the magnetic field, will not have the operation obstructed and will be able to be used the same as in the normal state” see column 10 lines 15-30). One of ordinary skill could have used a endoscope with the features of Kubokawa with the combination of Pendleton Song Fukatsu and Ezono to reach the aforementioned advantage. Therefore it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Kubokawa with the combination of Pendleton Song Fukatsu and Ezono to reach the aforementioned advantage
Ezono further discloses and the member includes at least one of the first member or the second member (see page 7 note that Enzono suggest magnetizing an existing metal component). One of ordinary skill in the art could have magnetized one of the first or second member of Kubokawa using the teachings of Ezono. The motivation to combine is that no power source is necessary to drive the magnet (see paragraph 19 first paragraph). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention futher to combine Song Kuobkawa Pendleton and Fukatsu with Enozo to reach the aforementioned advantage.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SONG et al WO2024191113A1 in view of Fukatsu US 20220361733 in view of Ezono WO 2013/034175 in view of Pendleton US 2010/032446 in view of Kubokawa US 5,035,231 in view of Iasacson US 20170347913 A1.
Re claim 19 Kubuakawa further discloses wherein the at least one of the first member or the second member includes austenitic stainless steel see column 10 lines 15-30. Kubokawa does not expressly disclose magnetizable steel. Iasacson discloses magnetizable steel (see paragraph 55). The motivation to combine is to provide a magnetic region for location (See paragraph 66). One of ordinary skill in the art could have modified the combination of Song Kuobkawa Pendelton Fukatsu Enozo to implement the magnetic pattern of Enozo using magnetizable steal as described in Issacson. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Song Kuobkawa Pendleton Fukatsu Enozo with Issacson to reach the aforementioned advantage.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 10 and 11 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C.101, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEAN T MOTSINGER whose telephone number is (571)270-1237. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM.
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, Chineyere Wills-Burns can be reached at (571) 272-9752. 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.
/SEAN T MOTSINGER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2673
Prosecution Insights