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 .
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.
Use of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is invoked is rebutted when the function is recited with sufficient structure, material, or acts within the claim itself to entirely perform the recited function.
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 for”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is not invoked is rebutted when the claim element recites function but fails to recite sufficiently definite structure, material or acts to perform that 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. Such claim limitations is/are:
“an image pick-up optical system that performs image pick-up of the reflection light” (Claim 1) / “the image pick-up optical system performing image pick-up of the reflection light” (Claim 13)
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation:
“an image pick-up optical system that performs image pick-up of the reflection light” (Claim 1) / “the image pick-up optical system performing image pick-up of the reflection light” (Claim 13): As identified by the Specification, the following is recognized as the corresponding structure to the image pick-up optical system: “The image pick-up optical system 40 is an optical system that performs image pick-up of the reflection light from the object to be observed that is illuminated with the illumination light, and includes an objective lens 41, the zoom lens 42, and the image pick-up sensor 43. The image pick-up optical system 40 includes a shutter 48 and an aperture diaphragm 47 (not illustrated) described later. The aperture diaphragm 47 and the shutter 48 may not be components but may be an electronic aperture diaphragm and an electronic shutter that are electronically controlled. The reflection light from the object to be observed that is irradiated with the illumination light enters the image pick-up sensor 43 via the objective lens 41 and the zoom lens 42, and consequently, the image of the object to be observed is imaged on the image pick-up sensor 43. The zoom lens 42 is a lens for magnifying the object to be observed and moves between a telephoto end and a wide end as a result of an operation on the zoom operation section 12i.” Or equivalents thereof.
If applicant wishes to provide explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation(s) treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112 , sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim(s) so that it/they will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
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.
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Regarding Claim 1, the claim(s) recites “calculate image signal brightness from image signals that differ from each other among the image signals;” which amounts to an abstract idea (mental process).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
- The claims fail to outline an improvement to the technical field.
- The claims fail to apply the judicial exception to effect a particular treatment.
- The claims fail to apply the judicial exception with a particular machine.
- The claims fail to effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing.
Next, the claim as a whole is analyzed to determine whether any element or a combination of elements, integrates judicial exception into a practical application.
For this part of the 101 analysis, the following additional limitations are considered:
“a light source device that causes at least one or more light sources to produce light and that emits observation illumination light and correction illumination light having a spectrum that differs from a spectrum of the observation illumination light toward the object to be observed;”
“an image pick-up optical system that performs image pick-up of the reflection light;”
“obtain image signals of multiple kinds different from each other in a first exposure period in which the observation illumination light is emitted and in a second exposure period in which the correction illumination light is emitted;”
“output a control amount that changes depending on the image signal brightness;”
“generate exposure control signals of multiple kinds having the control amounts different from each other;”
“control the at least one or more light sources and the image pick-up optical system depending on the exposure control signals.”
The additional elements are insufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they seem to merely generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Moreover, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they pertain merely to insignificant extrasolution data gathering activities and generic postsolution activity.
Furthermore, light source devices and image pick-up optical systems are general field of use and processors are generic computer elements used to perform generic computer functions and don’t add significantly more and are well-understood, routine, and previously known to the industry.
None of these limitations, considered as an ordered combination provide eligibility because the claim taken as a whole, does not amount to significantly more than the underlying abstract idea of calculating image signal brightness for multiple kinds of image signals to generate exposure control signals specific to images and controlling the at least one or more light sources and the image pick-up optical system in a broadly undefined way and does not purport to improve the functioning of the signal processing, or to improve any other technology or technical field. Use of a generic signal processing does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Dependent claims 2-12 also do not add significantly more to the exception as they merely add details to the mental steps, add details to the extrasolution data gathering steps, add general field of use components to facilitate the extrasolution data gathering, and add mental steps.
Regarding Claim 13, the claim(s) recites “calculating image signal brightness from image signals that differ from each other among the image signals,” which amounts to an abstract idea (mental process).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
- The claims fail to outline an improvement to the technical field.
- The claims fail to apply the judicial exception to effect a particular treatment.
- The claims fail to apply the judicial exception with a particular machine.
- The claims fail to effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing.
Next, the claim as a whole is analyzed to determine whether any element or a combination of elements, integrates judicial exception into a practical application.
For this part of the 101 analysis, the following additional limitations are considered:
“the light source device causing at least one or more light sources to produce light and emitting observation illumination light and correction illumination light having a spectrum that differs from a spectrum of the observation illumination light toward the object to be observed;”
“the image pick-up optical system performing image pick-up of the reflection light;”
“obtaining image signals of multiple kinds different from each other in a first exposure period in which the observation illumination light is emitted and in a second exposure period in which the correction illumination light is emitted,”
“outputting a control amount that changes depending on the image signal brightness,”
“generating exposure control signals of multiple kinds having the control amounts different from each other,”
“controlling the at least one or more light sources and the image pick-up optical system depending on the exposure control signals.”
The additional elements are insufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they seem to merely generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Moreover, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they pertain merely to insignificant extrasolution data gathering activities and generic postsolution activity.
Furthermore, light source devices and image pick-up optical systems are general field of use and processors are generic computer elements used to perform generic computer functions and don’t add significantly more and are well-understood, routine, and previously known to the industry.
None of these limitations, considered as an ordered combination provide eligibility because the claim taken as a whole, does not amount to significantly more than the underlying abstract idea of calculating image signal brightness for multiple kinds of image signals to generate exposure control signals specific to images and controlling the at least one or more light sources and the image pick-up optical system in a broadly undefined way and does not purport to improve the functioning of the signal processing, or to improve any other technology or technical field. Use of a generic signal processing does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
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.
Claim(s) 1-7 and 10-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saito (US 2015/0238086) as noted in Applicant IDS dated 9/03/2024 in view of Mishima (US 2020/0237201).
Regarding Claim 1, while Saito teaches an endoscope system that illuminates an object to be observed and that performs image pick-up of reflection light from the object to be observed (Abstract, [0010]), comprising:
a light source device that causes at least one or more light sources to produce light and that emits observation illumination light and special observation illumination light having a spectrum that differs from a spectrum of the observation illumination light toward the object to be observed ([0010], [0050], [0053]-[0056] light source device 14 and illumination optical system 24a, Figs. 3-4, [0058]-[0059] given spectrums of normal observation mode and special observation mode, [0099] system begins measuring a normal observation mode and looks for a lesion. Upon finding the lesion, the system changes to special observation mode. In changing to special observation mode, the system requires various kinds of signal processing [0073], [0081], [0094] where the signal processing occurring when the mode changes, with the new special observation spectrum, involves correction processing);
an image pick-up optical system that performs image pick-up of the reflection light ([0010], [0062]-[0067] imaging optical system 24b); and
a processor ([0050] processor device 16, [0072]),
wherein the processor is configured to:
obtain image signals of multiple kinds different from each other in a first exposure period in which the observation illumination light is emitted (Figs. 3 and 6, [0068] normal observation mode images target multiple times, for each period of one frame, [0064]-[0066] image signals of multiple kinds, different from each other, are obtained with specific image signals obtained based on different color filters) and in a different exposure period in which a special observation illumination light is emitted (Figs. 4 and 7, [0069] special observation images are performed in the same manner), where the normal observation mode and special observation mode both involve signal correction steps ([0073], [0075], [0081], [0094], [0099] where the signal processing occurring for each image and therefore when the mode changes. Thus correction processing applies to all illumination lights);
calculate image signal brightness from image signals that differ from each other among the image signals ([0075] all image signals will have their brightness calculated to enable brightness control);
output a control amount that changes depending on the image signal brightness ([0075]);
generate exposure control signals of multiple kinds having the control amounts different from each other ([0073]-[0076] all images signals can be evaluated to find an exposure control parameter for illumination light amounts); and
control the at least one or more light sources and the image pick-up optical system depending on the exposure control signals ([0073]-[0076] the exposure amount control and the illumination light amount control are parameters are parameters to control the image pick-up optical system and the light sources, respectively based on exposure control signals derived from the images),
Saito fails to teach producing correction illumination light having a spectrum that differs from a spectrum of the observation illumination light toward the object to be observed; and
Obtaining image signals of in a second exposure period in which the correction illumination light is emitted.
However Mishima teaches endoscopy imaging (Abstract) where imaging is done with a prescribed amount of emitted light controlled by a set light emission balance and a quality mode (Fig. 10, [0080], [0055]-[0062]) and a correction light emission is performed by adjusting the light emission balance to identify whether the prescribed amount of emitted light is reached ([0057]-[0062] frame sequential sensor uses emitted light at different periods to identify appropriate control for brightness, performs gain correction for balance and for quality [0080]-[0085]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to apply correction illumination light as another light having a spectrum that differs from a spectrum of the observation illumination light toward the object to be observed in Saito as taught by Mishima to identify whether a desired light emission balance is reached as a controlled light emission balance will suppress the generation of heat from the distal end of an endoscope ([0067]). Furthermore, it would be obvious for the brightness correction of Saito, based on image average pixel brightness, to be replaced with Mishima’s brightness correction based on color components, as this enables greater specificity in brightness optimization of the image signals over a global average brightness correction of Saito.
Regarding Claim 2, Saito and Mishima teach the endoscope system according to claim 1, wherein the control amount is outputted based on a difference between the image signal brightness and predetermined target brightness (See Claim 1 Rejection, gain signals are outputted based on a difference between the image signal brightness and predetermined target brightness, as reflected by the light emission balance and the set limited amount of light).
Regarding Claim 3, Saito and Mishima teach the endoscope system according to claim 2, and Saito teaches
wherein the processor is configured to:
obtain observation image signals as the image signals in the first exposure period (Fig. 6, [0068] normal observation mode imaged in frames, where “one frame is a period of the length from the end (time T.sub.A) of a charge accumulation period (also referred to as an exposure period) to the end of the next charge accumulation period (time T.sub.B),” and the obtaining/reading of the signals overlaps with the exposure period/charge accumulation period);
output a first control amount as the control amount, based on a difference between first image signal brightness that is the image signal brightness calculated by using the observation image signals and first target brightness that is the target brightness (See Claim 1 Rejection, [0078]-[0079] processing steps specific to the normal observation mode include brightness processing);
generate first exposure control signals as the exposure control signals based on the first control amount (See Claim 1 Rejection, [0078]-[0079])
and Mishima teaches
obtain observation image signals as the image signals in the first exposure period (Fig. 5, [0057]-[0062] normal observation mode imaged with sequential light balances, under a first exposure period of T1 specific to the normal observation mode);
obtain correction image signals as the image signals in the second exposure period (Fig. 5, [0057]-[0062] normal observation mode imaged with sequential light balances, under a second exposure period of T2-T3 specific to the normal observation mode and acting as correction image signals);
output a first control amount as the control amount, based on a difference between first image signal brightness that is the image signal brightness calculated by using the observation image signals and first target brightness that is the target brightness (Fig. 5, [0057]-[0062] first target brightness based on color amounts, light emission balance, and quality correction);
output a second control amount as the control amount that differs from the first control amount, based on a difference between second image signal brightness that is the image signal brightness calculated by using the correction image signals and second target brightness that is the target brightness (Fig. 5, [0057]-[0062] second target brightness based on color amounts, light emission balance, and quality correction, [0060] where the resulting gain / second control amount is different from the first control amount when attempting to correct for a low quality image);
generate first exposure control signals as the exposure control signals based on the first control amount (Fig. 5, [0060]-[0062]); and
generate second exposure control signals as the exposure control signals based on the second control amount (Fig. 5, [0060]-[0062]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to apply correction illumination light with generated exposure control signals as taught by Mishima to the observation light of Saito to provide a more accurate brightness correction over Saito’s average brightness correction while also suppressing heat generation in the system (Mishima: [0067]).
Regarding Claim 4, Saito and Mishima teach the endoscope system according to claim 3, wherein the second control amount is larger than the first control amount (See Claim 3 Rejection, Mishima: [0060] image quality correction factor must be larger for low quality images).
Regarding Claim 5, Saito and Mishima teach the endoscope system according to claim 3, wherein the processor is configured to calculate the image signal brightness by using a specific color signal among the image signals (See Claim 3 Rejection, Mishima: [0057]-[0058]).
Regarding Claim 6, Saito and Mishima teach the endoscope system according to claim 5, wherein the specific color signal is a B signal (See Claim 5 Rejection, brightness correction is performed for specific colors including blue light B).
Regarding Claim 7, Saito and Mishima teach the endoscope system according to claim 3, and Saito further teaches
wherein the processor is configured to:
generate an analysis image by using the image signals ([0010], [0086], [0114] an initial finding of a region, [0091]-[0092], [0094]-[0095], [0102]-[0106], division of image into different regions, signals processed in both regions, where the second region with pseudocolors is known to provide greater accuracy);
extract a specific region from the analysis image ([0010], [0091]-[0092], [0094]-[0095], [0102]-[0106] a specific region is found in relation to accuracy thresholds based on distance); and
calculate the image signal brightness by using the image signals in the specific region ([0094]-[0095] where the brightness signal processing has been applied to the specific regions of the display image).
Regarding Claim 10, Saito and Mishima teach the endoscope system according to claim 3,
wherein the processor is configured to:
switch between an observation mode in which the observation image signals are obtained and a different mode in which the observation image signals and the special observation image signals are obtained ([0098]-[0099] when a lesion is found, the system is configured to switch between an observation mode in which the observation image signals are obtained with a second white light and a special observation mode in which the observation image signals and the special observation image signals are obtained by alternately switching between the first and second white signals. The initial change into the special observation mode initiates signal processing, acting as an initial correction mode);
generate the first exposure control signals in the observation mode ([0098]-[0099]); and
generate the first exposure control signals and the second exposure control signals in the special observation mode ([0098]-[0099]), and Mishima further teaches the use of both a correction mode and special observation mode (See Claims 1 and 3 Rejection, (Fig. 6, [0063]-[0068] special observation mode with specific correction steps, mirroring those of the normal observation mode).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to perform the apply the correction steps of Mishima to the distinct white lights of the normal observation mode and the special observation mode of Saito and achieve to achieve the same desired brightness corrections in Saito. In doing so, switching between a normal observation mode and a special observation mode would necessitate the correction illumination steps outlined above with the sequence of Fig. 6. And after such the appropriate corrections are found, the correction mode’s output would be the first exposure control signals and the second exposure control signals in the special observation mode specific to the different white lights used in the special observation mode of Saito.
Regarding Claim 11, Saito and Mishima teach the endoscope system according to claim 3,
wherein the first exposure period includes a first illumination period in which substantially white light included in the observation illumination light is emitted and a second illumination period in which calculation illumination light included in the observation illumination light is emitted (See Claims 1 and 3 Rejection, when combining the reference so Saito and Mishima, the first exposure period can be Saito’s special observation mode which utilizes substantially white light included in the observation illumination light is emitted and a second illumination period in which calculation illumination light included in the observation illumination light is emitted as shown in Fig. 7. This would then be processed with the steps of Mishima, outlined in Fig. 6, [0065]-[0068]),
wherein the processor is configured to:
automatically switch between the first illumination period and the second illumination period ([0098]-[0099] the special observation mode in which the observation image signals and the special observation image signals are obtained by alternately switching between the first and second white signals);
obtain substantially white light image signals as the image signals in the first illumination period (See Claim 1 Rejection);
obtain calculation image signals as the image signals in the second illumination period (See Claim 1 Rejection);
generate first A exposure control signals as the exposure control signals based on the substantially white light image signals (See Claim 1 Rejection, Saito’s signal processing steps [0073] performed on each captured image);
generate first B exposure control signals as the exposure control signals based on the calculation image signals (See Claim 1 Rejection, Saito’s signal processing steps [0073] performed on each captured image);
control the at least one or more light sources and the image pick-up optical system depending on the first A exposure control signals and the first B exposure control signals (See Claim 1 Rejection, Saito [0073]).
And Mishima’s adds the second exposure period including a third illumination period in which the correction illumination light is emitted (See Claim 3 Rejection, Fig. 10, [0065]-[0068], [0080]-[0085] where the illumination light is initially emitted and then reviewed for necessary gain corrections, the gain corrections performed by a sequential frame sensor with exposure periods for different light emission profiles, thus reflecting at least a third illumination period performed to correct the illumination of the special observation mode), and
obtain the correction image signals in the third illumination period (See Claim 3 Rejection, correction image signals from the sequential illumination periods T2 and T3);
generate the second exposure control signals based on the correction image signals (See Claim 3 Rejection, [0065]-[0068] generated second exposure control signals specific to a special observation mode); and
control the at least one or more light sources and the image pick-up optical system depending on the the second exposure control signals (See Claim 3 Rejection, [0065]-[0068]).
control the at least one or more light sources and the image pick-up optical system depending on the first A exposure control signals, the first B exposure control signals, and the second exposure control signals (See Claims 1 and 3 Rejection, one will recognize that the second exposure control signals of Mishima acts as the brightness correction for Saito’s first A exposure control signals and the first B exposure control signals, outlined in Saito: [0073]. And as previously outlined, Mishima’s brightness correction steps provide a greater specificity over the average brightness in Saito and thus is obvious to apply).
Regarding Claim 12, Saito and Mishima teach the endoscope system according to claim 1,
wherein control on the at least one or more light sources includes control on an amount of light (See Claim 1 Rejection, [0057]-[0058], [0060], [0065]-[0068], [0073], [0076]), and
wherein control on the image pick-up optical system includes control on an aperture diaphragm value, control on an exposure time, and control on a gain (See Claim 1 Rejection, [0057]-[0058], [0060], [0065]-[0068], [0073] gain correction processing).
Regarding Claim 13, while Saito teaches a method of operating an endoscope system that illuminates an object to be observed and that performs image pick-up of reflection light from the object to be observed where a light source device, an image pick-up optical system, and a processor (Abstract, [0010], [0050], [0057]) are comprised, the method comprising the steps of:
the light source device causing at least one or more light sources to produce light and emitting observation illumination light and special observation illumination light having a spectrum that differs from a spectrum of the observation illumination light toward the object to be observed ([0010], [0050], [0053]-[0056] light source device 14 and illumination optical system 24a, Figs. 3-4, [0058]-[0059] given spectrums of normal observation mode and special observation mode, [0099] system begins measuring a normal observation mode and looks for a lesion. Upon finding the lesion, the system changes to special observation mode. In changing to special observation mode, the system requires various kinds of signal processing [0073], [0081], [0094] where the signal processing occurring when the mode changes, with the new special observation spectrum, involves correction processing);
the image pick-up optical system performing image pick-up of the reflection light ([0010], [0062]-[0067] imaging optical system 24b); and
the processor obtaining image signals of multiple kinds different from each other in a first exposure period in which the observation illumination light is emitted (Figs. 3 and 6, [0068] normal observation mode images target multiple times, for each period of one frame, [0064]-[0066] image signals of multiple kinds, different from each other, are obtained with specific image signals obtained based on different color filters) and in a second exposure period in which the special observation illumination light is emitted (Figs. 4 and 7, [0069] special observation images are performed in the same manner), where the normal observation mode and special observation mode both involve signal correction steps ([0073], [0075], [0081], [0094], [0099] where the signal processing occurring for each image and therefore when the mode changes. Thus correction processing applies to all illumination lights);
calculating image signal brightness from image signals that differ from each other among the image signals ([0075] all image signals will have their brightness calculated to enable brightness control);
outputting a control amount that changes depending on the image signal brightness ([0075]),
generating exposure control signals of multiple kinds having the control amounts different from each other ([0073]-[0076] all images signals can be evaluated to find an exposure control parameter for illumination light amounts), and
controlling the at least one or more light sources and the image pick-up optical system depending on the exposure control signals ([0073]-[0076] the exposure amount control and the illumination light amount control are parameters are parameters to control the image pick-up optical system and the light sources, respectively based on exposure control signals derived from the images),
Saito fails to teach producing correction illumination light having a spectrum that differs from a spectrum of the observation illumination light toward the object to be observed; and
Obtaining image signals of in a second exposure period in which the correction illumination light is emitted.
However Mishima teaches endoscopy imaging (Abstract) where imaging is done with a prescribed amount of emitted light controlled by a set light emission balance and a quality mode (Fig. 10, [0080], [0055]-[0056], [0065]-[0067]) and a correction light emission is performed by adjusting the light emission balance to identify whether the prescribed amount of emitted light is reached ([0065]-[0067] frame sequential sensor uses emitted light at different periods to identify appropriate control for brightness, performs gain correction for balance and for quality [0080]-[0085]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to apply correction illumination light as another light having a spectrum that differs from a spectrum of the observation illumination light toward the object to be observed in Saito as taught by Mishima to identify whether a desired light emission balance is reached as a controlled light emission balance will suppress the generation of heat from the distal end of an endoscope ([0067]). Furthermore, it would be obvious for the brightness correction of Saito, based on image average pixel brightness, to be replaced with Mishima’s brightness correction based on color components, as this enables greater specificity in brightness optimization of the image signals over a global average brightness correction of Saito.
Claim(s) 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saito in view of Mishima and further in view of Tomoto (US 2013/0208958).
Regarding Claim 8, while Saito and Mishima teach the endoscope system according to claim 7, Saito fails to teach wherein the specific region is extracted so as to follow a specific shape.
However Tomoto teaches endoscopic imaging with signal processing (Abstract, [0013]) where a captured imaged region may be matched to a predetermined shape ([0012], [0046], [0048]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have the region detection of Saito to further include extracting the image so as to follow a specific shape as taught by Tomoto as this maximizes comparability between images across trials by having the specific output images follow consistent patterns.
Regarding Claim 9, Saito, Mishima, and Tomoto teach the endoscope system according to claim 8,
wherein the processor is configured to:
extract a first region as the specific region from a first analysis image that is the analysis image generated by using the observation image signals;
extract a second region as the specific region from a second analysis image that is the analysis image generated by using the correction image signals (See Claims 1, 3, and 8 Rejection, Saito teaches that a normal observation mode is used when looking for a lesion and a special observation mode is used when a lesion is found. Thus, a first region would be a specific region from a first analysis image that is the analysis image generated by using the observation image signals while looking for the lesion. And a second region would be a specific region from a second analysis image that is the analysis image generated by using the special observation image signals that would begin as a correction image signals as the system is corrected for imaging a lesion), where
output a first region control amount as the control amount, based on a difference between first region brightness calculated as the image signal brightness by using the first region and the first target brightness;
output a second region control amount as the control amount, based on a difference between second region brightness calculated as the image signal brightness by using the second region and the second target brightness;
generate first region exposure control signals as the exposure control signals based on the first region control amount; and
generate second region exposure control signals as the exposure control signals based on the second region control amount (See Claims 1, 3, and 8 Rejections, where these steps are applied to each image, characterized by the system being in a normal observation mode, special observation mode, or correction modes specific to the previous modes).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAIRO H PORTILLO whose telephone number is (571)272-1073. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 am - 5:15 pm.
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, Jacqueline Cheng can be reached at (571)272-5596. 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.
/JAIRO H. PORTILLO/
Examiner
Art Unit 3791
/PUYA AGAHI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights