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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species I in the reply filed on June 9, 2026 is acknowledged.
Disposition of Claims
Claims 1-15 are pending.
Claim 1-10 & 12-14 are rejected.
Claims 11 & 15 are objected to.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Such claim limitation is:
"an optical member configured to change a direction of the measurement auxiliary light" in Claim 6, as described in Para. [0041] of Applicant’s specification.
Because this claim limitation is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it is being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this limitation interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation to avoid it being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation recites sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
Claims 3 & 14 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.
Regarding Claim 3, Claim 3 recites the limitation “the measurement auxiliary light head is disposed on one of two sides of a line connecting the forceps port and the imaging lens [emphasis added]” on Lines 2-3. It is unclear whether these “two sides” and this “line” are the same as the “two sides” and the “line”, previously recited on Line 14 of Claim 1, respectively, or separate, different sides and a separate, different line. For the purpose of examination, “the measurement auxiliary light head is disposed on one of two sides of a line connecting the forceps port and the imaging lens” is being interpreted as “the measurement auxiliary light head is disposed on one of the two sides of the line connecting the forceps port and the imaging lens [emphasis added]”.
Regarding Claim 14, Claim 14 recites the limitation “a plurality of index figures” on Line 2. It is unclear whether these “plurality of index figures” include the “index figure” previously recited on Line 3 of Claim 9, or separate, different index figures. For the purpose of examination, “a plurality of index figures” is being interpreted as “a plurality of index figures, which include the index figure,”.
Regarding Claim 14, Claim 14 recites the limitation “a plurality of actual sizes of the specific region in the subject” on Lines 2-3. It is unclear whether these “plurality of actual sizes” include the “actual size” previously recited on Line 4 of Claim 9, or separate, different actual sizes. For the purpose of examination, “a plurality of actual sizes of the specific region in the subject” is being interpreted as “a plurality of actual sizes, which includes the actual size, of the specific region in the subject”.
Regarding Claim 14, Claim 14 recites the limitation “a position of the measurement auxiliary light in the image [emphasis added]” on Lines 3-4. It is unclear whether this “position” is the same as the “position” previously recited on Lines 4-5 of Claim 9, or a separate, different position. For the purpose of examination, “a position of the measurement auxiliary light in the image” is being interpreted as “the position of the measurement auxiliary light in the image [emphasis added]”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1-5, 9 & 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Takami (DE 3629435 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Takami, as best understood, discloses an endoscope (Fig. 3, 52; [0047]) comprising:
an insertion part (Fig. 3, 54; [0047]) configured to be inserted into a body ([0002]);
an end surface (Takami Annotated Fig. 4, 58s; [0015] & [0048]) that is provided on a distal end of the insertion part (Takami Annotated Fig. 4, 58; [0047]);
a plurality of illuminating lenses (Takami Annotated Fig. 4, 80; [0048]) that are disposed on the end surface (see Takami Annotated Fig. 4);
a forceps port (Takami Annotated Fig. 4, 74; [0048]) that is disposed on the end surface (see Takami Annotated Fig. 4);
an imaging sensor (Fig. 5, 66; [0048]) configured to capture an image of a subject in the body ([0049]);
an imaging lens (Takami Annotated Fig. 4, 62; [0048]) that is disposed on the end surface (see Takami Annotated Fig. 4) on a same optical path (Fig. 5, LO; [0048]) as the imaging sensor (see Fig. 5); and
a measurement auxiliary light head (Takami Annotated Fig. 4, 68; [0048]) from which measurement auxiliary light is radiated (Fig. 5, a measuring beam; [0048]) within an imaging range (Fig. 5, ℓO; [0054]) of the image captured by the imaging sensor (Figs. 5 & 11, 128 wherein 128 is P2; [0055] & [0071]), the measurement auxiliary light head being disposed on the end surface (see Takami Annotated Fig. 4),
wherein when the end surface is viewed from a front, the plurality of illuminating lenses are disposed on two sides of an optical axis of the measurement auxiliary light (Takami Annotated Fig. 4, Ld; [0048]) and are disposed on two sides of a line connecting the forceps port and the imaging lens (w; see Takami Annotated Fig. 4).
PNG
media_image1.png
1490
1780
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 2, Takami discloses the endoscope according to Claim 1. Takami further discloses wherein when the end surface is viewed from the front, the optical axis of the measurement auxiliary light crosses the imaging lens ([0054] & see Fig. 5).
Regarding Claim 3, Takami discloses the endoscope according to Claim 1. Takami further discloses wherein when the end surface is viewed from the front, the measurement auxiliary light head is disposed on one of two sides of a line connecting the forceps port and the imaging lens (see Takami Annotated Fig. 4).
Regarding Claim 4, Takami discloses the endoscope according to Claim 1. Takami further discloses an operating part (Fig. 3, 56; [0047]) that is disposed on a proximal side of the insertion part ([0047]); and
a light source of the measurement auxiliary light (Figs. 3 & 5, 72; [0048]) that is disposed in the operating part (Fig. 3, a portion of 72 is disposed in 56; [0048]).
Regarding Claim 5, Takami discloses the endoscope according to Claim 4. Takami further discloses wherein the light source of the measurement auxiliary light includes one of a semiconductor laser or a light-emitting diode ([0079]).
Regarding Claim 9, Takami, as best understood, discloses an endoscope system (Fig. 3, an endoscopic system comprising 52, 70, 72, 82 and 84; [0048]) comprising:
the endoscope according to Claim 1 (FOR THE SAKE OF BREVITY THE REJECTION OF CLAIM 1 IS NOT REPRODUCED HEREIN); and
a processor (Fig. 6, 114; [0051]) configured to display an index figure (Fig. 11, superimposed graphics comprising 126, 132 and 134; [0071] & [0072]) together with the image (Figs. 5 & 11, 128 wherein 128 is P2; [0055] & [0071]) on a display (Fig. 11, 98; [0049]), the index figure indicating an actual size of a specific region ([0073]) in the subject in accordance with a position of the measurement auxiliary light in the image ([0073]).
Regarding Claim 13, Takami discloses the endoscope system according to Claim 9. Takami further discloses wherein a shape of the index figure is a distorted circle (Fig. 11, 132 is substantially a warped circle; [0072]).
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.
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.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takami (DE 3629435 A1).
Regarding Claim 7, Takami discloses the endoscope according to Claim 1.
Takami fails to explicitly disclose wherein the measurement auxiliary light head has a diameter not larger than 1.5 mm.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the diameter of the measurement auxiliary light head of Takami be not larger than 1.5 mm since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the measurement auxiliary light head would not operate differently with the claimed diameter. Further, Applicant places no criticality on the range claimed, indicating that “the total diameter of the laser head 506 can be 1.0 mm to 1.5 mm” (see Para. [0036] of Applicant’s specification).
Claims 6 & 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takami (DE 3629435 A1) in view of Kitatsuji et al. (hereinafter "Kitatsuji") (US 2013/0289396).
Regarding Claim 6, Takami discloses the endoscope according to Claim 1. Takami further discloses wherein the measurement auxiliary light head radiates the measurement auxiliary light in a direction relative to the optical path of the imaging lens (Fig. 5, the measurement beam of 68 is radiated at an angle β relative to LO; [0048]).
Takami fails to explicitly disclose wherein the measurement auxiliary light head includes an optical member configured to change the direction of the measurement auxiliary light radiated from the measurement auxiliary light head.
However, Kitatsuji teaches a medical imaging device (Fig. 1, 1; [0017]) comprising:
an insertion part (Fig. 1, 10; [0018]) configured to be inserted into a body ([0022]);
a measurement light head (Fig. 1, a distal OCT assembly comprising 11, 12, 13 and 14; [0022]) from which measurement light (Fig. 1, object light used in measurement of an interferometric signal; [0022] & [0027]) is radiated at an angle (a deflection angle; [0023]) relative to an optical axis (Fig. 1, AX; [0023]); and
wherein the measurement light head includes an optical member (Fig. 1, 14; [0022]) configured to change the angle of the measurement light radiated from the measurement light head ([0023]).
The advantage of the prism is to selectively control the angle/direction of measurement auxiliary light by selecting the cut surface/angle of the prism (Kitatsuji; [0010] & [0022]).
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 measurement auxiliary light head as disclosed by Takami, to include the pri taught by Kitatsuji, to selectively control the angle/direction of measurement auxiliary light by selecting the cut surface/angle of the prism (Kitatsuji; [0010] & [0022]).
Regarding Claim 8, modified Takami teaches the endoscope according to Claim 7. Modified Takami fails to explicitly disclose wherein the measurement auxiliary light head includes a ferrule having a diameter not larger than 1.25 mm.
However, Kitatsuji teaches a medical imaging device (Fig. 1, 1; [0017]) comprising:
an insertion part (Fig. 1, 10; [0018]) configured to be inserted into a body ([0022]);
a measurement light head (Fig. 1, a distal OCT assembly comprising 11, 12, 13 and 14; [0022]) from which measurement light is radiated (Fig. 1, object light used in measurement of an interferometric signal; [0022] & [0027]); and
wherein the measurement light head includes a ferrule having a diameter (Fig. 2, 12; [0022]).
The advantage of the ferrule is to strengthen an attachment between the measurement auxiliary light head and a light source of the measurement auxiliary light thereby preventing light loss ([Kitatsuji; [0031]).
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 measurement auxiliary light head as disclosed by Takami, to include the ferrule taught by Kitatsuji, to strengthen an attachment between the measurement auxiliary light head and a light source of the measurement auxiliary light thereby preventing light loss ([Kitatsuji; [0031]).
Kitatsuji fails to explicitly teach wherein the ferrule has a diameter of not larger than 1.25 mm.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the diameter of the ferrule of Kitatsuji be not larger than since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, ferrule would not operate differently with the claimed diameter. Further, Applicant places no criticality on the range claimed, indicating that “in the laser head 506, for example, [the ferrule] ha[s] a diameter of 0.8 mm to 1.25 mm” (see Para. [0036] of Applicant’s specification).
Claims 10 & 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takami (DE 3629435 A1) in view of Nakamura et al. (hereinafter "Nakamura") (JP 2011015721 A).
Regarding Claims 10 & 12, Takami discloses the endoscope system according to Claim 9. Takami fails to explicitly disclose wherein the processor makes the index figure corrected in accordance with a distortion aberration of an imaging optical system including the imaging lens; and wherein the processor is configured to display the index figure indicating the actual size set by a user.
However, Nakamura, as best understood, teaches an endoscope system (Fig. 11, a stereoscopic video display device; [0061]) comprising:
an endoscope (Fig. 11, 51; [0061]) comprising:
an insertion part (see Fig. 11);
an end surface (see Fig. 11) that is provided on a distal end of the insertion part (see Fig. 11);
an imaging sensor (Fig. 11, 55; [0061]) configured to capture an image ([0062]) of a subject in the body (see Fig. 11); an
an imaging lens (Fig. 9, 36; [0054]); and
a display (Fig. 11, 53; [0061]);
a processor (Fig. 11, 52; [0061]) configured to display an index figure (Fig. 11, 58; [0062]) together with the image on the display (Fig. 11, 58 is superimposed on the captured image and displayed on 53; [0062]), the index figure indicating an actual size of a specific region in the subject ([0063]);
wherein the processor makes the index figure corrected in accordance with a distortion aberration of an imaging optical system including the imaging lens ([0057]); and
wherein the processor is configured to display the index figure indicating the actual size set by a user (Fig. 11, an operator designates the position and the posture of 58 on the image; [0063]).
The advantage of the user-controlled index figure is to measure various objects in the same image (Nakamura; [0040]).
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 processor as disclosed by Takami, to include the user-controlled index figure as taught by Nakamura, to measure various objects in the same image (Nakamura; [0040]).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 9-10 & 12-14 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 1-13 of U.S. Patent No. 12,059,126 in view of Takami (DE 3629435 A1).
The claims of ‘126 disclose all of the limitations of the instant claims except for an insertion part configured to be inserted into a body; and wherein a shape of the index figure is a distorted circle.
Regarding Claims 9-10 & 12-14, Takami, as best understood, discloses an endoscope system (Fig. 3, an endoscopic system comprising 52, 70, 72, 82 and 84; [0048]) comprising:
an endoscope (Fig. 3, 52; [0047]) comprising:
an insertion part (Fig. 3, 54; [0047]) configured to be inserted into a body ([0002]);
an end surface (Takami Annotated Fig. 4, 58s; [0015] & [0048]) that is provided on a distal end of the insertion part (Takami Annotated Fig. 4, 58; [0047]);
a plurality of illuminating lenses (Takami Annotated Fig. 4, 80; [0048]) that are disposed on the end surface (see Takami Annotated Fig. 4);
a forceps port (Takami Annotated Fig. 4, 74; [0048]) that is disposed on the end surface (see Takami Annotated Fig. 4);
an imaging sensor (Fig. 5, 66; [0048]) configured to capture an image of a subject in the body ([0049]);
an imaging lens (Takami Annotated Fig. 4, 62; [0048]) that is disposed on the end surface (see Takami Annotated Fig. 4) on a same optical path (Fig. 5, LO; [0048]) as the imaging sensor (see Fig. 5); and
a measurement auxiliary light head (Takami Annotated Fig. 4, 68; [0048]) from which measurement auxiliary light is radiated (Fig. 5, a measuring beam; [0048]) within an imaging range (Fig. 5, ℓO; [0054]) of the image captured by the imaging sensor (Figs. 5 & 11, 128 wherein 128 is P2; [0055] & [0071]), the measurement auxiliary light head being disposed on the end surface (see Takami Annotated Fig. 4),
wherein when the end surface is viewed from a front, the plurality of illuminating lenses are disposed on two sides of an optical axis of the measurement auxiliary light (Takami Annotated Fig. 4, Ld; [0048]) and are disposed on two sides of a line connecting the forceps port and the imaging lens (w; see Takami Annotated Fig. 4); and
a processor (Fig. 6, 114; [0051]) configured to display an index figure (Fig. 11, superimposed graphics comprising 126, 132 and 134; [0071] & [0072]) together with the image (Figs. 5 & 11, 128 wherein 128 is P2; [0055] & [0071]) on a display (Fig. 11, 98; [0049]), the index figure indicating an actual size of a specific region ([0073]) in the subject in accordance with a position of the measurement auxiliary light in the image ([0073]); and
wherein a shape of the index figure is a distorted circle (Fig. 11, 132 is substantially a warped circle; [0072]).
The advantage of the index figure being a distorted circle is to better identify an area intended for inspection by a user (Takami; [0072]).
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 index figure as disclosed by '126, to include the distorted circle as taught by Takami, to better identify an area intended for inspection by a user (Takami; [0072]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11 & 15 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.
Claim 14 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and double patenting, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding Claim 11, Takami discloses the endoscope system according to Claim 9. Takami, as best understood, fails to explicitly disclose wherein the processor is configured to display the index figure according to information on a relationship between the position of the measurement auxiliary light in the image and a size of the index figure corresponding to the actual size measured in advance.
Regarding Claim 14, Takami discloses the endoscope system according to Claim 9. Takami, as best understood, fails to explicitly disclose wherein the processor is configured to display a plurality of the index figures indicating a plurality of the actual sizes of the specific region in the subject in accordance with a position of the measurement auxiliary light in the image.
Regarding Claim 15, Takami discloses the endoscope system according to Claim 9. Takami, as best understood, fails to explicitly disclose wherein illumination light that is radiated from the plurality of illuminating lenses is turned off or dimmed when the measurement auxiliary light is radiated from the measurement auxiliary light head.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 2016/0287141; US 2016/0225168; US 2012/0050514; US 2011/0187824; US 2010/0324366; and U.S. 5,436,655.
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
Prosecution Insights