Prosecution Insights
Last updated: July 17, 2026
Application No. 18/785,400

IMAGE PROCESSING DEVICE, ENERGY TREATMENT INSTRUMENT, TREATMENT SYSTEM, AND IMAGE PROCESSING METHOD

Non-Final OA §102
Filed
Jul 26, 2024
Priority
Mar 10, 2022 — continuation of PCTJP2022010712
Examiner
NAKHJAVAN, SHERVIN K
Art Unit
3795
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Olympus Corporation
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
88%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
5m
Est. Remaining
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 88% — above average
88%
Career Allowance Rate
556 granted / 628 resolved
+18.5% vs TC avg
Moderate +11% lift
Without
With
+10.6%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 5m
Avg Prosecution
19 currently pending
Career history
645
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
8.4%
-31.6% vs TC avg
§103
57.9%
+17.9% vs TC avg
§102
11.1%
-28.9% vs TC avg
§112
13.2%
-26.8% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 628 resolved cases

Office Action

§102
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. 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(s) 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(s) is/are: “the energy treatment instrument be configured to be captured by an endoscope inserted into the subject” in claim 12. Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are 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/these limitation(s) 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(s) to avoid it/them 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(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US 2021/0379396 A1 to Otsu et al (hereinafter ‘Otsu’) Regarding claim 12, Otsu discloses an energy treatment instrument that can be inserted into a subject and is capable of treating a treatment target site, the energy treatment instrument be configured to be captured by an endoscope inserted into the subject (Para [0019], wherein an endoscope having a camera and/or an ultrasound imaging device; a tubular elongated tube insertable into the endoscope and having a lumen formed in the tubular elongated tube; an optical fiber insertable into the lumen and capable of emitting the near-infrared ray; and a measurement device that is insertable into the lumen and monitors irradiation of a site, which is irradiated with the near-infrared ray, with the near-infrared ray), the energy treatment instrument comprising an indicator that is arranged at a distal end of the energy treatment instrument (Para [0038], wherein an orientation marker 44, as the indicator, is provided at the distal portion of the optical fiber 41), the indicator being configured to be detected by enhancing a region included in a part of the energy treatment instrument in an image corresponding to image data captured by the endoscope compared to other regions in an edge component and a brightness (while the detecting of the indicator in an image is considered an intended use and is not given a patentable weight, Para [0040] discloses the orientation marker 44 is a site for an operator to check a position in the body. The orientation marker 44 can be formed of, for example, a radiopaque material, inherently as brightness distinct material, . The radiopaque material can be, for example, a metal material such as a metal such as gold, platinum, and tungsten, or an alloy containing gold, platinum, and/or tungsten. Thereby, the operator can check the position of the orientation marker 44, inherently as positioned in proximity to the edge of the treating fiber, under X-ray contrast outside the body). Allowable Subject Matter Claims 1-11, 13 and 14 are allowed. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art or the prior art of record specifically US 2013/0002844 A1 to Shida, US 2019/0298157 A to Kuriyama, and Luo et al (PTOL-892, item U) does not disclose: . . . .. perform tone correction on the image corresponding to the image data to generate correction image data; and generate first composite image data in which the correction image data and the enhancement image data are combined, of claims 1, 13 and 14 combined with other features and element of the claims; Claims 2-11 depend from an allowable base claim and are thus allowable themselves. Contact Information Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHERVIN K NAKHJAVAN whose telephone number is (571)272-5731. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00-12:00 PST. 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, Sue Lefkowitz can be reached at (571)272-3638. 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. /SHERVIN K NAKHJAVAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2672
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jul 26, 2024
Application Filed
May 29, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §102 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12664691
METHOD AND DEVICE FOR CALIBRATING POSITION OF MOVER IN DIRECT DRIVE TRANSMISSION SYSTEM
3y 0m to grant Granted Jun 23, 2026
Patent 12657797
SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR 3D IMAGING RECONSTRUCTION USING DUAL-DOMAIN NEURAL NETWORK
2y 5m to grant Granted Jun 16, 2026
Patent 12657672
IMAGE DENOISING METHOD
2y 2m to grant Granted Jun 16, 2026
Patent 12646207
Method and Device for Predicting Object Data Concerning an Object
2y 7m to grant Granted Jun 02, 2026
Patent 12631469
NAVIGATING USING TWO-DIMENSIONAL MAP DATA FOR AUTONOMOUS SYSTEMS AND APPLICATIONS
2y 6m to grant Granted May 19, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

Strategy Recommendation AI-generated — please review before filing

Get a prosecution strategy drawn from examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Typically takes 5-10 seconds — AI-generated, attorney review required before filing

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
88%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+10.6%)
2y 5m (~5m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 628 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allowance rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month