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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: paragraph [0001] of the specification requires updating as to the status of the parent application (i.e. patent number).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 7-8, and 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Akui et al. (U.S. Pat. 5,577,991, hereinafter “Akui”).
As to claim 1, Akui discloses a method, comprising:
receiving light at an endoscope (subject images (light) is received at endoscope 43, col.4, lines 28-32);
splitting the light into a first light path and a second light path with an optical component (prism 50 splits the light into two paths, Fig.1, col.4, lines 54-57);
determining a misalignment between a first sensor and a second sensor (image mismatch detector 38, Fig.3, determines the amount of mismatch between images from the first and second image sensors, col.6, lines 53-61), the first sensor (45a, Fig.1) disposed on a chassis (e.g. 58a) in the endoscope and aligned with the first light path (aligned with upper light path in Fig.1), and the second sensor disposed proximate the optical component in the endoscope and aligned with the second light path (aligned with lower light path in Fig.1);
determining a first change in pose of the first sensor to compensate for the misalignment, the determination made based at least partially on a registration between the first sensor and the second sensor (based on the amount of mismatch between the images, which is representative of misalignment of registration between the image sensors, the processor determines a movement adjustment amount between the images to cancel out the mismatch, col.6, lines 62 to col.7, line 11); and
causing the first change in pose of the first sensor (when alternatively using mechanical movable image sensors, as set forth above with respect to claim 1, the movement adjustment to cancel mismatch between the images will be movement of one or both of the image sensors, col.10, lines 1-25, via adjustment mechanism 121, Fig.11-13).
As to claim 2, further comprising: receiving a first video stream from the first sensor and a second video stream from the second sensor (video streams are processed from the first and second image sensors, col.6, lines 32-41).
As to claim 3, further comprising: performing feature detection on the first video stream and the second video stream (contour extracting circuits 37a,37b and mismatch detector 38 performs feature detection, col.6, lines 53-61); and determining, based on the feature detection, an amount of offset between the first video stream and the second video stream (determines the amount of mismatch (offset) between the video frames of the first and second image sensors, col.6, lines 53-61).
As to claim 4, wherein the endoscope comprises an optical assembly that channels the light into the optical component (optical system 44a,44b, Fig.1), and wherein the optical assembly comprises at least one of one or more mirrors, one or more windows, one or more polarizers, one or more lenses, and one or more filters (lenses, Fig.1).
As to claim 7, comprising the further step of passing the light collected by the endoscope to a connected camera head, the camera head containing the first sensor and the second sensor (images (light) passes from optical system of endoscope 43 to a camera head 47a,47b, which contains the first and second image sensors 45a,45b, Fig.1).
As to claim 8, wherein the step of splitting the light into a first light path and a second light path with an optical component is performed within the camera head (prism 50, which splits the light, is within the camera head, Fig.1).
As to claim 12, Akui discloses an apparatus, comprising:
a camera head (47a,47b, Fig.1) configured to receive light from an endoscope attached thereto (camera head 47a,47b can receive light from endoscope 43, Fig.1), the camera head comprising:
an optical component (prism 50, Fig.1) configured to split light into two or more light paths (two light paths shown in Fig.1);
a first sensor (image sensor 45a) disposed on a chassis (e.g. circuit board 58a) and aligned with a first light path of the two or more light paths (aligned with upper light path in Fig.1); and
a second sensor (image sensor 45b, Fig.1) disposed proximate the optical component (Fig.1) and aligned with a second light path of the two or more light paths (aligned with the lower light path in Fig.1), wherein the first sensor is configured to move relative to at least one of the optical component and the second sensor (Akui teaches that an adjusting means for correcting mismatch between the images can be purely electronic OR can be done by mechanically adjusting the positions of the image sensors, col.7, lines 50-67, col.9, line 24-col.10, line 25, wherein either of the sensors are moved vertically or horizontally in a plane orthogonal to the optical axis, col.10, lines 3-18), and wherein the movement is orthogonal to an optical axis of the optical component (col.10, lines 3-18).
As to claim 13, wherein the optical component is a beam splitter (prism 50 is a beam splitter, col.4, lines 54-57).
As to claim 14, wherein the beam splitter comprises a prism (prism 50).
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.
Claim(s) 5-6, 10, and 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akui et al. (U.S. Pat. 5,577,991, hereinafter “Akui”) in view of Kai et al. (US 2002/0176713, hereinafter “Kai”).
As to claims 5 and 16, Akui discloses the method/apparatus as set forth above with respect to claims 1 and 12, wherein the first sensor is disposed in a sensor module (adjustment mechanism 121, Fig.11-13), which includes motors (132,133, Figs.11-13, col.10, lines 3-10) to cause the sensor to move in an X-Y direction and thus fails to disclose a plurality of magnets disposed proximate the first sensor, a plurality of electromagnets disposed within an interior of the sensor module and a position sensor disposed within the interior of the sensor module. Kai teaches a similar X-Y movement actuator using a plurality of magnets and electromagnetics proximate an image sensor, including a proximate position sensor to provide feedback for the amount of movement (Fig.9,10, [0077]-[0078], magnets 4x,4y, [0046], electromagnets 5x,5y, [0047], position sensors 6xa/6xb,6ya/6yb, [0048]). Since both Akui and Kai teach X-Y movement actuators for moving an image sensor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the X-Y movement actuator of Kai for that of Akui to achieve the predictable result of moving the image sensor in the X and Y directions.
As to claims 6 and 17, with the modification as set forth above with respect to claims 5 and 16, Akui/Kai further discloses causing the first change in pose of the first sensor includes: passing current through the plurality of electromagnets such that an electromagnetic interaction between the plurality of electromagnets and the plurality of magnets causes the first sensor to move (using the magnets/electromagnets actuator of Kai, as set forth above, movement of the sensor occurs by passing current through the electromagnets, [0055]).
As to claims 10 and 18, wherein the change in pose of the first sensor is performed iteratively (Akui: col.7, lines 1-7, repeatedly performed to maintain matching within a range, due to, for example, focal distances, col.14, line 53 to col.15, line 5), and wherein the current passed through the plurality of electromagnets is adjusted based on a reading from the position sensor (Kai: drive control implemented in conformance with output of position sensor, [0041]).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akui et al. (U.S. Pat. 5,577,991, hereinafter “Akui”) in view of Kai et al. (US 2002/0176713, hereinafter “Kai”) and further in view of Hart et al. (US 2010/0019170, hereinafter “Hart”).
As to claim 15, Akui discloses the apparatus as set forth above with respect to claim 12, including a processor (control unit 30, Fig.3) configured to receive a first video stream from the first sensor (note signal processing circuits 32a,32b,col.6, lines 32-41) and cause the change in pose of the first sensor (a not shown drive circuit drives the X-Y actuator, col.10, lines 3-18, in accordance with control unit command, col.7, lines 1-11). Akui fails to disclose that the processor receives information about a first movement of the endoscope and determine, based on the first movement, a change in pose of the first sensor to compensate for the first movement of the endoscope. However, Kai teaches in the image capturing art, that vibration (shake) due to unsteady hand movement (or other sources of vibration) degrades the image quality ([0003]-[0004]) of the image capture device, but such effects can be substantially eliminated by sensing movement of the imaging device, determining, based on the movement, a change in position of of image sensor to compensate for the movement, and causing an X-Y actuator to change the position of the image sensor based on the compensating change in position (Kai: [0041], processor (control unit 504) controls X-Y actuators based on received movement information of the imaging device). Since Akui already include an X-Y actuator arrangement, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have configured the processor with the vibration/shake control functioning, as taught by Kai, in order to desirably substantially eliminate the adverse effect of unsteady movement of the endoscope (Kai: [0003]-[0004]).
With the modification set forth immediately above, it is noted that Akui discloses processor functioning due to “circuits” (hardware) and fails to mention that such functioning is performed by software (data stored in memory causing the processor to…). However, it is well recognized in the processor arts that processors and their functioning can be realized by hardware, software or any combination of these (Hart: [0193]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have implemented functions of the Akui/Kai processor using hardware, software, or a combination of these as is well known in the art.
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 12-14 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,082,782 in view of Akui (U.S. Pat. 5,577,991).
Application claim 12 recites an apparatus that is substantially the same as that of Patent claim 1 except for reciting the endoscope from which the camera head receives light. Akui teaches to provide the endoscope and camera head in combination to form a fully functioning imaging apparatus (endoscope 43, camera head 47a,47b, Fig.1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have included the endoscope with the camera head in the application claim since such combination is known in the art and to provide a fully functioning imaging apparatus.
As to claims 13 and 14, the Patent claim recites an “optical component configured to split light into two or more light paths” but fails to claim any particular type of optical component. Akui teaches that an light splitting optical component can encompass a prism as a beam splitter (Akui: prism 50, Fig.1, col.4, lines 54-57). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have used any know optical component suitable for splitting light, including a prism/beamsplitter, as taught by Akui, for the predictable result of splitting the beam paths.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9 and 11 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See references cited on PTO-892. Of particular relevance is Lee et al. (US 2023/0209198) which discloses electromagnet/magnet shift actuator for a camera sensor.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN P LEUBECKER whose telephone number is (571)272-4769. The examiner can normally be reached Generally, M-F, 5:30-2:00.
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, Anhtuan T Nguyen can be reached at 571-272-4963. 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.
/JOHN P LEUBECKER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3795