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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Priority
1. Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
2. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 06/19/24, 01/15/25, have been entered. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
3. The drawings filed on 06/19/24. These drawings are acceptable.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
4. 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.
5. Claims 1-6, 11, 13, 14, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kanamori (U.S. Pub. No. 2015/0219552). Hereafter “Kanamori”.
Regarding Claims 1, 13, 14, Kanamori teaches an optical imaging system comprising:
one or more optical imaging sensors for providing imaging sensor data of an object to be imaged ([0069]. Figure 2 discloses a light source, camera and object. Figure 7, sensors 110, 111);
a diode-based illumination system ([0125], lines 4-6) for emitting at least a first unit of one or more light beams having a first polarization and a second unit of one or more light beams having a second polarization towards the object (the following figure 7, a first unit 103A light beams 105A having a first polarization, a second unit 103B light beams 105B having a second polarization);
a processing system configured to:
generate a digital image representation of the object (figure 7, it is inherent that Display 118 displays a digital image), comprising controlling a contribution of the at least two units of light beams in a digital image representation of the object (the following figure 7, element 12 controls the two units 103A, 103B), by at least one of
a) controlling, separately for each of the at least two units, the light emitted by the unit ([0125]. The following figure 7, element 12 controls separately the two units 103A, 103B), and
b) controlling, separately for each of the at least two polarizations emitted by the at least two units, a contribution of the light having the respective polarization in the digital image representation of the object ([0123-0124, 0164]. The following figure 7, element 12 controls separately the two units 103A, 103B to emit respective different polarization light beams 105A, 105B).
[AltContent: textbox (105B)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (105A)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (103B)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (103A)][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
578
424
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 2, Kanamori teaches the processing system is configured to control the contribution of the at least two units in the digital image representation by controlling, separately for each of the at least two units, an illumination intensity of the unit (the above figure 7, elements 112, 134 are not different from the processing system, two units 103A, 103B).
Regarding Claim 3, Kanamori teaches the optical imaging system comprises a first optical imaging sensor for sensing light having the first polarization and a second optical imaging sensor for sensing light having the second polarization, the imaging sensor data comprising a first component being based on the light having the first polarization and a second component being based on the light having the second polarization, the processing system being configured to control the contribution of the at least two units of light beams in the digital image representation of the object, by controlling a contribution of the first and second component of the imaging sensor data (the above figure 7, two units 103A, 103B, the first optical imaging sensor 110, the second optical imaging sensor 111, returning light 107 has two different first polarization and second polarization, elements 112, 134 are not different from the processing system).
Regarding Claim 4, Kanamori teaches the processing system is configured to control the contribution of the at least two units in the digital image representation by controlling the illumination system to time-multiplex the at least two units, such that the imaging sensor data comprises a first subset of frames being primarily based on the light having the first polarization and a second subset of frames being primarily based on the light having the second polarization, and by controlling a contribution of the first and second subset of frames in the digital image representation of the object (the above figure 7, the first optical imaging sensor 110, the second optical imaging sensor 111, calculation process unit 120 is not different from the processing system controlling the illumination system to time-multiplex. [0139, 0142]).
Regarding Claim 5, Kanamori teaches the processing system is configured to obtain an input signal, the input signal indicating a desired amount of specular reflections, and to control the contribution of the at least two units of light beams in the digital image representation of the object based on the desired amount of specular reflections (figure 2. [0014, 0015, 0069, 0158]).
Regarding Claim 6, Kanamori teaches the processing circuitry is configured to generate a display signal based on the digital image representation of the object, and to provide the display signal to a display device (figure 7, Display 118, elements 112, 120, 124, 130, are not different from the processing circuitry).
Regarding Claim 11, Kanamori teaches the optical imaging system comprises an objective, wherein illumination diode modules of the diode-based illumination system are arranged at the objective of the optical imaging system (figure 8A, objective lens 108, diode light source 103).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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 of this title, 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.
7. Claim(s) 7-9, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kanamori (U.S. Pub. No. 2015/0219552) in view of DiMaio et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 9,962,090). Hereafter “Kanamori” and “DiMaio”.
Regarding Claim(s) 7, Kanamori teaches the processing circuitry is configured to process the digital image representation, a condition of the object based on the digital image representation, and to provide a result of the classification (figure 7, elements 112, 120, 128, 130, 124, are not different from the processing circuitry. It is inherent that Display 118 displays a digital image). However, Kanamori does not teach using a machine-learning model trained to classify. DiMaio teaches using a machine-learning model trained to classify, (column 85, lines 10-13). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to modify Kanamori by having a machine-learning model in order to improve the inspection system more efficiently, (column 85, lines 10-13).
Regarding Claim(s) 8 Kanamori teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as stated above except for the object is a surgical site, and the machine-learning model is trained to classify tissue of the surgical site as pathologic or healthy. DiMaio teaches the object is a surgical site, and the machine-learning model is trained to classify tissue of the surgical site as pathologic or healthy (column 85, lines 1-18). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to modify Kanamori by having the object is a surgical site in order to classify tissue, (column 85, lines 1-18).
Regarding Claim(s) 9 Kanamori teaches the processing system is configured to generate at least two different digital image representations of the object with at least two different contributions of the at least two units of light beams, and to process the at least two different digital image representation using the machine-learning model ([0005, 0053, 0107, 0113, 0114, 0119, 0125, 0164]).
8. Claim(s) 10, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kanamori (U.S. Pub. No. 2015/0219552) in view of DiMaio et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 9,962,090), further in view of Sugiyama (U.S. Pat. No. 11,719,598). Hereafter “Kanamori”, “DiMaio”, “Sugiyama”.
Regarding Claim(s) 10, Kanamori and DiMaio teach all the limitations of claim 1 as stated above except for the illumination system is configured to emit four units of one or more light beams having four different polarizations, wherein the processing system is configured to generate at least four different digital image representations of the object with at least four different contributions of the four units of light beams. Sugiyama teaches to emit four units of one or more light beams having four different polarizations, wherein the processing system is configured to generate at least four different digital image representations of the object with at least four different contributions of the four units of light beam (figure 1, four elements 27A-D; Figure 6, four elements 217A-D are not different from four units having four different polarizations to generate at least four different digital image). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to modify Kanamori and DiMaio by having four units having four different polarizations in order to acquire four different optical signals for detection, (column 1, lines 45-54).
Moreover, DiMaio teaches using a machine-learning model as indicated in claim 7 above, (column 85, lines 10-13). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to modify Kanamori by having a machine-learning model in order to improve the inspection system more efficiently, (column 85, lines 10-13).
9. Claim(s) 12, 15, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kanamori (U.S. Pub. No. 2015/0219552) in view of Yardibi et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2023/0017411). Hereafter “Kanamori” and “Yardibi”.
Regarding Claim(s) 12, Kanamori teaches endoscope system ([0069], lines 1). However, Kanamori does not teach an exoscope system. Yardibi teaches an exoscope system ([0001], lines 11-14). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to modify Kanamori by having an exoscope system in order to allow the clinician(s) to view the surgical site and/or one or more portions thereof on one or more displays such as a monitor., ([0001]).
Regarding Claim(s) 15, Kanamori teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as stated above except for a program code for performing the method according to claim 14 when the computer program is run on a processor. Yardibi teaches a program code for the computer program is run on a processor, ([0049, 0086]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to modify Kanamori by having a program code for the computer program is run on a processor in order to operate the system, ([0049, 0086]).
Fax/Telephone Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRI T TON whose telephone number is (571)272-9064. The examiner can normally be reached on 8am-4pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Michelle Iacoletti can be reached on (571)270-5789. 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.