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 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, 3-4, 7, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fukuda et al. (US 20140043455 A1) (hereon referred to as Fukuda).
Regarding claim 1, Fukuda teaches a video imaging system, comprising:
a monitor (352) comprising a display screen (see Para. [0023]);
an internal scope (200) comprising a camera (212) that acquires internal images of a patient (see Para. [0022]); and
an environmental camera (213) that acquires environmental images of a patient environment (see Para. [0022]);
wherein the monitor (352) operates to:
receive the internal images from the internal scope (200) and the environmental images from the environmental camera (213);
receive an internal scope clock time (synchronization signal) from the internal scope (see Para. [0047]);
determine a first difference between the internal scope clock time (synchronization signal) and a monitor clock time (clock time, see Para. [0047]);
synchronize the internal images (video stream) and the environmental images (event stream) based on the first difference (see Para. [0047]); and
combine the synchronized internal and environmental images into a combined video file (see Para. [0047]).
Regarding claim 3, Fukuda teaches the video imaging system of claim 1, wherein the internal scope is one of an endoscope (see Para. [0018]).
Regarding claim 4, Fukuda teaches the video imaging system of claim 1, wherein the monitor (352) operates to use the first difference to synchronize the internal images to the monitor clock time (see Para. [0047]).
Regarding claim 7, Fukuda teaches the video imaging system of claim 1, wherein the environmental camera is housed in or on the monitor (see Para. [0023]).
Regarding claim 10, Fukuda teaches the video imaging system of claim 1, wherein one or both of the monitor or the environmental camera is coupled to a portable stand.
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 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukuda as applied in the rejection of claim 1 above, and further in view of Tata et al. (US 20210127949 A1) (hereon referred to as Tata).
Fukuda teaches the video imaging system as outlined in the rejection of claim 1 above, however fails to teach wherein the monitor comprises a portable tablet.
Tata teaches a video endoscope device (400) with a camera (see Para. [0049]) and a monitor (416), wherein the monitor may be a handheld portable tablet (see Para. [0052]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the monitor of Fuduka to be a handheld portable tablet as taught by Tata, as this would enable ease of use in a OR setting where various medical professionals may require access to the display screen during the procedure (see Para. [0052]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12-20 are allowed.
Claims 2, 5-6, 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The claims in the instant application have not been rejected using prior art because no references, or reasonable combination thereof, could be found which disclose, or suggest, the claimed combination of limitations recited in independent claims 12 and 16. In particular, none of the cited references teach or suggest the limitations “shift the internal images relative to the environmental images based on the first and second differences, to time-synchronize the internal images and the environmental images to each other”, or “acquiring, by the monitor, environmental images from a room-facing environmental camera on the monitor, wherein the environmental images are acquired simultaneously with the internal images” as required by claims 12 and 15, respectively.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See form PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HOLLY J LANE whose telephone number is (703)756-4702. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00am-5:00pm.
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, Eduardo Robert can be reached at 571-272-4719. 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.
/H.J.L./Examiner, Art Unit 3773 /EDUARDO C ROBERT/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3773