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
Response to Arguments
1. 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).
2. With respect to applicant’s remarks filed on 04/14/26 regarding rejected claims 1-6, 11, 13, 14, on pages 5-8, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicants argues “the claimed invention distinguishes between the physical control of the light-emitting hardware (option a, now deleted) and the computational/digital control of the imaging sensor data used to form the final digital image representation (option b, now the sole requirement). The claims now strictly require the latter, adjusting how the differently polarized light contributes within the digital image representation itself (e.g., through image processing, channel blending, or digital frame manipulation). … Kanamori's controller 12 physically drives LED units 103A and 103B to emit light beams having respective polarizations. This is hardware-level illumination control (e.g., turning light sources on or off or adjusting their intensity), which corresponds to the now-deleted option a)”. New claim 1 has been amended with option a) has been deleted. The limitation of option b) “a contribution of the light having the respective polarization in the digital image representation of the object” has been found in new reference of Sieler et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2014/0146290), (figure 8, two different light units 710, 720 control separately two polarizing beams from two different beam splitters 730, 740, having the respective polarization in the digital image; [0063, 0085]). This limitation has also been disclosed in reference of Sugiyama (U.S. Pat. No. 11,719,598), (column 11, lines 22-31).
Applicant also argues “The cited paragraphs of Kanamori (Id. 0123-0124, 0164) describe the timing and sequencing of the two illumination units; they are entirely silent on any processing system that digitally processes or manipulates the resulting imaging sensor data to compute how the respective polarizations contribute to the final digital image representation”. However, this limitation “processing system that digitally processes or manipulates the resulting imaging sensor data to compute how the respective polarizations contribute to the final digital image representation”, must be added into the claims in order to be considered.
3. Grounds for the rejection of claims are provided below as necessitated by amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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.
5. Claim(s) 1, 3-6, 11, 13, 14, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kanamori (U.S. Pub. No. 2015/0219552) in view of Sieler et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2014/0146290) or in view of Sugiyama (U.S. Pat. No. 11,719,598). Hereafter “Kanamori”, “Sieler”, “Sugiyama”.
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], lines 3-6; Figure 2 discloses a light source, camera and object. The following figure 7, light sources 103A, 103B, 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 an image representation of the object (figure 7, it is inherent that Display 118 displays an image. Detecting unit 128, and image combining unit 130, and brightness processing unit 124 is not different from a processing system), comprising controlling a contribution of the at least two units of light beams in image representation of the object (figures 8A, 21, and the following figure 7, element 12 controls the two units of light beams 103A, 103B in image representation of the object; ([0069], lines 3-6; [0167]), by
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 image representation of the object ([0069], lines 3-6; [0123-0124, 0164, 0167]. The following figure 7, illumination-imaging unit 112, having 2 separate control lines 106, controls separately the two units 103A, 103B to emit respective different polarization light beams 105A, 105B).
However, Kanamori does not teach a contribution of the light having the respective polarization in the digital image. Sieler discloses a contribution of the light having the respective polarization in the digital image, (figure 8, two different light units 710, 720 control separately two polarizing beams from two different beam splitters 730, 740, having the respective polarization in the digital image; [0063, 0085]). Sugiyama also discloses this limitation, (column 11, lines 18-31). 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 contribution of the light having the respective polarization in the digital image in order control the digital image/signal, (Sieler, [0003, 0063]. Sugiyama, column 11, lines 18-31).
Regarding Claim 3, Kanamori, Sieler, Sugiyama disclose an optical imaging system according to claim 1 as stated above, Kanamori further discloses 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 image representation of the object, by controlling a contribution of the first and second component of the imaging sensor data (the following 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, Detecting unit 128, and image combining unit 130, and brightness processing unit 124 is not different from a processing system).
[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 4, Kanamori, Sieler, Sugiyama disclose an optical imaging system according to claim 1 as stated above, Kanamori further discloses 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 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, Sieler, Sugiyama disclose an optical imaging system according to claim 1 as stated above, Kanamori further discloses 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 image representation of the object based on the desired amount of specular reflections (figure 2. [0014, 0015, 0069, 0158]).
Regarding Claim 6, Kanamori, Sieler, Sugiyama disclose an optical imaging system according to claim 1 as stated above, Kanamori further discloses the processing system is configured to generate a display signal based on the 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, Sieler, Sugiyama disclose an optical imaging system according to claim 1 as stated above, Kanamori further discloses 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 Sieler et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2014/0146290) or in view of Sugiyama (U.S. Pat. No. 11,719,598), further in view of DiMaio et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 9,962,090). Hereafter “Kanamori”, “Sieler”, “Sugiyama”, “DiMaio”.
Regarding Claim(s) 7, Kanamori, Sieler, Sugiyama, discloses the claimed invention according to claim 1 as stated above except for the processing system 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, and using a machine-learning model trained to classify. Kanamori discloses the processing system 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). DiMaio discloses 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, Sieler, Sugiyama 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, Sieler, Sugiyama, discloses the claimed invention according to claims 1, 7, 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, Sieler, Sugiyama by having the object is a surgical site in order to classify tissue, (column 85, lines 1-18).
Regarding Claim(s) 9 Kanamori, Sieler, Sugiyama, discloses the claimed invention according to claims 1, 7, as stated above except for 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. 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 Sieler et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2014/0146290) or in view of Sugiyama (U.S. Pat. No. 11,719,598), further 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”, “Sieler”, “Sugiyama”, “DiMaio”, “Sugiyama”.
Regarding Claim(s) 10, Kanamori, Sieler, Sugiyama and DiMaio discloses the claimed invention according to claims 1, 7, 9, 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, Sieler, Sugiyama, 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, Sieler, Sugiyama 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 Sieler et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2014/0146290) or in view of Sugiyama (U.S. Pat. No. 11,719,598), further in view of Yardibi et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2023/0017411). Hereafter “Kanamori”, “Sieler”, “Sugiyama”, “Yardibi”.
Regarding Claim(s) 12, Kanamori, Sieler, Sugiyama disclose the claimed invention according to claim 1, as stated above except for endoscope system. Kanamori discloses 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, Sieler, Sugiyama, 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, Sieler, Sugiyama, disclose the claimed invention according to claim 14, as stated above except for a program code for performing the method 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, Sieler, Sugiyama by having a program code for the computer program is run on a processor in order to operate the system, ([0049, 0086]).
Conclusion
10. 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
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.
Prosecution Insights