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
This office Action is in response to an application filed on 06/28/2024 claiming priority to 63/511,430 filed on 06/30/2023, in which claims 1-20 are pending and are being examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
This information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/12/2024 and 11/12/2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and 37 CFR 1.98. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) 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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The 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/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1, 12, 18, and similar dependent claims are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of Copending Application APP 18/756,839. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the conflicting claims have not in fact been patented. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the subject matter claimed in the instant application is anticipated by the Copending Application and is covered by the Application since the Application and the application are claiming common subject matter, below is a list of limitations that perform the same function, however, different terminology may be used in both sets to describe the limitations, as follows, Claim 1 is used as an example to analyze the common subject matter:
Copending Application 18/756,839
Instant Application:-18/758,625
1. An endoscope camera controller, comprising: a processor and memory coupled to the processor, the memory comprising instructions, which when executed by the processor cause the endoscope camera controller to: receive an indication of a pulse start control signal and one or more laser pulse characteristics, the pulse start control signal to define an initiation of lasing by a lasing console and the one or more laser pulse characteristics to define the lasing; determine an integration timing period of a camera sensor of an endoscope based on the pulse start control signal and the one or more laser pulse characteristics; and generate an integration control signal, the integration control signal to cause the camera sensor to accumulate charge during integration timing period.
1. a method for an endoscope system, comprising: receiving, at a processor of an endoscope console, an indication of a pulse start control signal and one or more laser pulse characteristics, the pulse start control signal to define an initiation of lasing by the lasing console and the one or more laser pulse characteristics to define the lasing; determining, by the processor, a measurement time period for a sensor of the endoscope system based on the pulse start control signal and the one or more laser pulse characteristics; and receiving by the processor or generating by the processor, sensor measurements based on the measurement time period.
As demonstrated, the claim of Copending Application 18/756,839 anticipate the features of the claim of instant application 18/758,625.
A nonstatutory type (35 U.S.C. 101) double patenting rejection can be overcome by amending the conflicting claims so they are no longer coextensive in scope or filing of a terminal disclaimer.
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(s) 18-20 recites a “computer readable storage device” which could cover both transitory and non-transitory embodiments. See specification, Published Current Application, paragraph [0068]-[0080], which gives examples of embodiment(s) is broad and is open to many interpretations such as signal or software. The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) is required to give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification during proceeding before the USPTO. See In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (during patent examination the pending claims must be interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably allow). The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim drawn to a computer readable medium (also called machine readable medium and other such variations) typically covers forms of non-transitory tangible media and transitory propagating signals per se in view of the ordinary and customary meaning of computer readable media, particularly when the specification is silent. See MPEP 2111.01. When the broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim covers a signal per se, the claim must be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as covering non-statutory subject matter. See ln re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 1356-57 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (transitory embodiments are not directed to statutory subject matter) and Interim Examination Instructions for Evaluating Subject Matter Eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101 Aug. 24 2009; p. 2.
The Examiner suggests that the Applicant add the limitation “non-transitory” to the computer readable storage device as recited in the claim(s) for clarity and in order to properly render the claim(s) in statutory form in view of their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the originally filed specification. The Examiner also suggests that the specification may be amended to include the term ‘non-transitory computer readable storage device” disclosed in the claims and specification to avoid a potential objection to the specification for a lack of antecedent basis of the claimed terminology.
Examiner’s Note
Claims 1-11 refer to "A method for an endoscope system”, Claims 12-17 refer to "An endoscope system”, Claims 18-20 refer to "A computer readable storage device”. Claims 12-20 are similarly rejected in light of rejection of claims 1-11, any obvious combination of the rejection of claims 1-11, or the differences are obvious to the ordinary skill in the art. It is requested to keep the scope of all the independent claims similar for advancing the prosecution.
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.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sheldon et al. (US 20220104908 A1), hereinafter Sheldon, in view of Talbert et al. (US 20200404146 A1), hereinafter Talbert.
Regarding claim 1, Sheldon discloses a method for an endoscope system, comprising (Abstract): receiving, at a processor of an endoscope console (Fig. 14), an indication of a pulse start control signal and one or more laser pulse characteristics (Fig. 17E), the pulse start control signal to lasing by the lasing console and the one or more laser pulse characteristics to define the lasing ([0135]-[0136]); determining, by the processor, a measurement time period for a sensor of the endoscope system based on the pulse start control signal and the one or more laser pulse characteristics (Fig. 17E); and receiving by the processor or generating by the processor, sensor measurements based on the measurement time period (Fig. 17A-F).
Sheldon discloses all the elements of claim 1 but Sheldon does not appear to explicitly disclose in the cited section everything define an initiation of lasing.
However, Talbert from the same or similar endeavor teaches define an initiation of lasing (Fig. 3A-D, [0109], [0180]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sheldon to incorporate the teachings of Talbert to provide valuable information about the body cavity (Talbert, [0009]). Similar reasoning/motivation of modification can be applied/extended to the other related/dependent claims.
Regarding claim 2, Sheldon in view of Talbert discloses the method of claim 1, wherein receiving by the processor sensor measurements based on the measurement time period comprising: generating a control signal, the control signal to cause the sensor to measure a physical characteristic of an environment in which the endoscope is disposed based on the measurement time period; and receiving, at the processor from the sensor, an information element comprising indications of the physical characteristic measured based on the measurement time period (Sheldon, [0103]).
Regarding claim 3, Sheldon in view of Talbert discloses the method of claim 2, wherein the control signal comprises an indication of the measurement time period and an indication to measure the physical characteristic outside the measurement time period (Sheldon, Fig. 17A-17F).
Regarding claim 4, Sheldon in view of Talbert discloses the method of claim 2, wherein the control signal comprises an indication to power gate the sensor during the measurement time period (Sheldon, Fig. 17A-17F).
Regarding claim 5, Sheldon in view of Talbert discloses the method of claim 1, wherein generating by the processor sensor measurements based on the measurement time period comprising: receiving, at the processor from the sensor, an information element comprising indications of physical characteristic of an environment measured by the sensor; and generating, by the processor, the sensor measurements based on the physical characteristics and the measurement time period (Sheldon, Fig. 17A-17F, Fig. 18).
Regarding claim 6, Sheldon in view of Talbert discloses the method of claim 5, wherein generating, by the processor, the sensor measurements based on the physical characteristics and the measurement time period comprising removing measurements captured during the measurement time period (Talbert, [0245]-[0248]).
Regarding claim 7, Sheldon in view of Talbert discloses the method of claim 5, wherein generating, by the processor, the sensor measurements based on the physical characteristics and the measurement time period comprising normalizing measurements captured during the measurement time period based on measurements captured outside the measurement time period (Sheldon, Fig. 17A-17F, Fig. 18, Talbert, [0268]-[0269]).
Regarding claim 8, Sheldon in view of Talbert discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the one or more laser pulse characteristics define a frequency of pulses to be generated by the lasing console (Sheldon, Fig. 17A-17F, Fig. 18).
Regarding claim 9, Sheldon in view of Talbert discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the one or more laser pulse characteristics define a pulse width of the pulses (Sheldon, Fig. 17A-17F, Fig. 18).
Regarding claim 10, Sheldon in view of Talbert discloses the method of claim 1, wherein determining the measurement time period comprising: determining an initiation of one or more laser pulses based on the pulse start control signal; determining a pulse width of the one or more laser pulses based on the one or more laser pulse characteristics; determining a conclusion of the one or more laser pulses based on the pulse width; and determining the measurement time period based on the initiation and conclusion of the one or more laser pulses (Sheldon, Fig. 17A-17F, Fig. 18).
Regarding claim 11, Sheldon in view of Talbert discloses the method of claim 1, wherein determining the measurement time period comprising: determining a first instance where an intensity of one or more laser pulses exceeds a threshold value; determining a second instance subsequent to the first instance where an intensity of the one or more laser pulses does not exceed the threshold value; and determining the measurement time period based on the first instance and the second instance (Sheldon, Fig. 17A-17F, Fig. 18).
Regarding claim 12-20, See Examiner’s Note.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMAD J RAHMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7190. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 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, David Czekaj can be reached at (571) 272-7327. 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.
/Mohammad J Rahman/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2487