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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the features of a computer program product embodying computer readable instructions stored on a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium for causing an imaging device to be inserted into an interior of a main body of an assistance tool from an opening of the assistance tool, as claimed in Claim 12, must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). More specifically, the figures fail to show any mechanism that can cause an imaging device to be inserted into an interior of a main body of an assistance tool from an opening of the assistance. tool No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. More specifically, Claim 12 claims a computer program that causes an imaging device to be inserted into an interior of a main body of an assistance tool from an opening of the assistance tool. However, the specification provides not information as to how a computer program running on a processor, with nothing else (e.g., computer controlled actuators, grippers, location/orientation sensors, etc.) can insert an imaging device into an assistance tool.
Appropriate correction by Applicant is required.
For purposes of Examination, Examiner interprets “A computer program product embodying computer readable instructions stored on a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium for causing an imaging device to be inserted into an interior of a main body of an assistance tool from an opening of the assistance tool, the imaging device configured to perform the steps of” as “A computer program product embodying computer readable instructions stored on a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium for causing an imaging device
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
More specifically, Claim 12 claims a computer program that causes an imaging device to be inserted into an interior of a main body of an assistance tool from an opening of the assistance tool. However, it is unclear how a computer program running on a processor, with nothing else (e.g., computer controlled actuators, grippers, location/orientation sensors, etc.) can insert an imaging device into an assistance tool.
Appropriate correction by Applicant is required.
For purposes of Examination, Examiner interprets “A computer program product embodying computer readable instructions stored on a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium for causing an imaging device to be inserted into an interior of a main body of an assistance tool from an opening of the assistance tool, the imaging device configured to perform the steps of” as “A computer program product embodying computer readable instructions stored on a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium for causing an imaging device
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 present rejection(s) reference specific passages from cited prior art. However, Applicant is advised that the rejections are based on the entirety of each cited prior art. That is, each cited prior art reference “must be considered in its entirety”. Therefore, Applicant is advised to review all portions of the cited prior art if traversing a rejection based on the cited prior art.
Claims 1, 3, and 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okiyama (US PGPUB 2021/0059534 – “Okiyama”).
Regarding Claim 1, a first embodiment of Okiyama discloses:
An assistance tool (Okiyama FIG. 1, intraoral imaging aid 3) to be inserted into an oral cavity (Okiyama FIG. 1, oral cavity 71) for imaging an inner side of the oral cavity by an imaging device (Okiyama FIG. 3, imaging device 57), the assistance tool comprising:
a main body (Okiyama FIG. 2, cylindrical main body 31) in a cylindrical shape;
an opening (Okiyama FIG. 3, opening 32A) being formed at an end portion (Okiyama FIG. 3, proximal end 32) of the main body in a direction opposite to a direction where the assistance tool is inserted into the oral cavity in a manner that the imaging device can be inserted into an interior of the main body (Okiyama FIG. 3, distal end 33, as inserted into a patient’s oral cavity in Okiyama FIG. 1).
The first embodiment depicted in Okiyama FIG. 2 does not explicitly show a cover being formed at an end portion of the main body in the direction where the assistance tool is inserted into the oral cavity in a manner that light detected by the imaging device can pass through the cover.
However, a second embodiment of Okiyama teaches a cover (Okiyama FIG. 2, window 33A; Okiyama paragraph [0061], “window 33A may be covered with a transparent member”) being formed at an end portion of the main body in the direction where the assistance tool is inserted into the oral cavity in a manner that light detected by the imaging device can pass through the cover (Okiyama paragraph [0061], “window 33A is provided to give a visual field from the inside of the main body 31 to the outside of the main body 31, and here, the lens of the imaging device 57 in the main body 31 is exposed to the outside”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Okiyama’s covered window with the assistance tool disclosed in the first embodiment of Okiyama. A person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine these prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of an assistance tool that prevents patient fluids from reaching an imaging device (see imaging device 57 in Okiyama FIG. 3).
The first embodiment of Okiyama further discloses:
a cover collar (Okiyama FIG. 2, regulator 35) being formed to connect the main body (Okiyama FIG. 2, cylindrical main body 31) and the cover (Okiyama FIG. 2, covered window 33A) in a manner that the cover is disposed at the end portion of the main body in the direction where the assistance tool is inserted into the oral cavity, at least a part of the cover collar being included within an angle of view imaged by the imaging device inserted from the opening (Okiyama FIG. 3, showing regulator 35 in the angle of view of imaging device 57).
Regarding Claim 3, Okiyama discloses the features of Claim 1, as described above.
The first and second embodiments of Okiyama described in the rejection of Claim 1 do not explicitly teach a notification window for making a notifier visible in a case where the imaging device having the notifier for notifying that the imaging device is attached to the assistance tool is inserted from the opening.
However, a third embodiment of Okiyama teaches a notification window (Okiyama FIG. 8, holes 243 in intraoral imaging aid 23) for making a notifier visible in a case where the imaging device having the notifier for notifying that the imaging device is attached to the assistance tool is inserted from the opening (Examiner interprets holes 243 as allowing a user to see if and where the imaging device 57 is inserted within the intraoral imaging aid 23).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Okiyama’s holes with the assistance tool taught by the first and second embodiments of Okiyama. A person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine these prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of an assistance tool that not only allows a user to see if and where an imaging device is inserted, but also provides an air passage for the patient (see Okiyama paragraph [0074]).
Regarding Claim 5, Okiyama discloses the features of Claim 1, as described above.
Okiyama further discloses a plate (Okiyama FIG. 2, flange 32) being disposed along at least a part of an outer periphery of the main body to protrude from the main body toward an outer peripheral direction of the main body in a direction perpendicular or substantially perpendicular to the direction where the assistance tool is inserted into the oral cavity.
Regarding Claim 6, Okiyama discloses the features of Claim 5, as described above.
Okiyama further teaches wherein the plate (Okiyama FIG. 2, flange 32) includes a through hole (Okiyama FIG. 3, opening 32A) penetrating in a thickness direction.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okiyama (US PGPUB 2021/0059534 – “Okiyama”) in view of Suzuki et al. (US PGPUB 2006/0255683 – “Suzuki”).
Regarding Claim 2, Okiyama discloses the features of Claim 1, as described above.
The first embodiment of Okiyama further discloses:
the cover collar includes an appearing-in-image area formed in a manner that at least part thereof is included within the angle of view (Okiyama FIG. 3, showing regulator 35 in the angle of view of imaging device 57).
Okiyama does not explicitly disclose the appearing-in-image area (of the cover/cap) includes a structure formed in a predetermined pattern.
Suzuki teaches the appearing-in-image area (of the cover/cap – Suzuki FIG. 2, cap 120 in analogous art feedback controller 100) includes a structure formed in a predetermined pattern (Suzuki FIG. 5B, barcode 190; Suzuki paragraph [0164], “an encoding barcode 190 that is fixed to an inside surface of the cap 120…The rotational state detecting device 220 is constructed so as to detect the rotational state of the cap 120 with respect to the base 110 by detecting the movement of the encoding barcode 190 with the optical sensor unit 192.”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Suzuki’s barcode with the cover disclosed in the assistance tool taught by Okiyama. A person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine these prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of an assistance tool that allows a user to visualize relative rotation between a scope and a cover (see Okiyama paragraph [0053] and Suzuki paragraph [0045]).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okiyama (US PGPUB 2021/0059534 – “Okiyama”) in view of Takasu et al. (US PGPUB 2015/0015964 – “Takasu”).
Regarding Claim 4, Okiyama discloses the features of Claim 3, as described above.
As described above, the third embodiment of Okiyama teaches the notification window (Okiyama FIG. 8, holes 243 in intraoral imaging aid 23) is disposed at a position facing the notifier in the case where the imaging device is inserted from the opening (Examiner interprets holes 243 as allowing a user to see if and where the imaging device 57 is inserted within the intraoral imaging aid 23).
Okiyama does not explicitly teach:
the notifier includes a light emitter that emits light to an outer side, and at least a periphery of the light emission window inhibits transmission of at least a part of the light emitted from the light emitter.
Takasu is analogous art directed to emitting visible notification signals to a user, and teaches:
the notifier includes a light emitter (Takasu FIG. 8, light emitters 32a, 32b, and 32c) that emits light to an outer side (Takasu FIG. 8, outer side of case 33), and at least a periphery of the light emission window inhibits transmission of at least a part of the light emitted from the light emitter (Takasu paragraph [0062], “Respective light emitted from the light emitters 32a, 32b, and 32c toward the "front" direction sequentially pass through the openings of the case 33…as indication lights such as various warnings. The indication lights are…visually recognized by the driver”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Takasu’s LED with the assistance tool taught by Okiyama. A person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine these prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of a notification window that is highly visible, even in a dim room.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okiyama (US PGPUB 2021/0059534 – “Okiyama”) in view of Truckai et al. (US PGPUB 2018/0084971 – “Truckai”).
Regarding Claim 7, Okiyama discloses the features of Claim 1, as described above.
The first embodiment of Okiyama further teaches an external positioning mechanism (Okiyama FIG. 4, flange 34) for positioning the imaging device and the assistance tool in the case where the imaging device is inserted from the opening (Examiner interprets Okiyama’s flange 34 as positioning the imaging device while entering the intraoral imaging aid 3). However, if the “positioning mechanism” were to be interpreted by Applicant as an internal positioning mechanism, then for purposes of compact prosecution Examiner further cites Truckai.
Truckai teaches an internal positioning mechanism for positioning the imaging device and the assistance tool in the case where the imaging device is inserted from the opening (Truckai FIG. 2, tapered interior of distal end 152 of end cap 150 on sheath 120, which guide distal end of endoscope 108 into distal end of end cap 150).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Truckai’s internal tapered guides with the assistance tool taught by Okiyama. A person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine these prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of an assistance tool that ensures placement of an endoscope/imaging device against the distal end of Okiyama’s end cap 150, thus providing optimal clarity in images captured by the endoscope/imaging device.
Claims 10 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okiyama (US PGPUB 2021/0059534 – “Okiyama”) in view of Venkataraman (US PGPUB 2021/0015342 – “Venkataraman”).
Regarding Claim 10, a first embodiment of Okiyama discloses:
An imaging device (Okiyama FIG. 3, imaging device 57) configured to be inserted into an interior of a main body (Okiyama FIG. 2, cylindrical main body 31) of an assistance tool (Okiyama FIG. 1, intraoral imaging aid 3) from an opening (Okiyama FIG. 3, opening 32A) of the assistance tool,
the assistance tool being inserted into an oral cavity (Okiyama FIG. 1, oral cavity 71) for imaging an inner side of the oral cavity, and including:
the main body (Okiyama FIG. 2, cylindrical main body 31) having a shape;
the opening being formed at an end portion (Okiyama FIG. 3, proximal end 32) of the main body in a direction opposite to a direction where the assistance tool is inserted into the oral cavity (Okiyama FIG. 3, distal end 33, as inserted into a patient’s oral cavity in (Okiyama FIG. 1);
The first embodiment depicted in Okiyama FIG. 2 does not explicitly show a cover being formed at an end portion of the main body in the direction where the assistance tool is inserted into the oral cavity.
However, a second embodiment of Okiyama teaches a cover (Okiyama FIG. 2, window 33A; Okiyama paragraph [0061], “window 33A may be covered with a transparent member”) being formed at an end portion of the main body in the direction where the assistance tool is inserted into the oral cavity (Okiyama paragraph [0061], “window 33A is provided to give a visual field from the inside of the main body 31 to the outside of the main body 31, and here, the lens of the imaging device 57 in the main body 31 is exposed to the outside”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Okiyama’s covered window with the assistance tool disclosed in the first embodiment of Okiyama. A person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine these prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of an assistance tool that prevents patient fluids from reaching an imaging device (see imaging device 57 in Okiyama FIG. 3).
The first embodiment of Okiyama further discloses:
a cover collar (Okiyama FIG. 2, regulator 35) being formed to connect the main body (Okiyama FIG. 2, cylindrical main body 31) and the cover (Okiyama FIG. 2, covered window 33A) in a manner that the cover is disposed at the end portion of the main body in the direction where the assistance tool is inserted into the oral cavity (Okiyama FIG. 3, showing regulator 35 at the distal end of cylindrical main body 31).
The first and second embodiments of Okiyama do not explicitly teach:
the imaging device comprising:
at least one processor, wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute computer readable instructions so as to: start capturing a subject image by receiving an operation input by a user.
However, a third embodiment of Okiyama teaches:
the imaging device (Okiyama FIG. 13, intraoral imaging apparatus 5) comprising:
at least one processor (Okiyama FIG. 13, CPU 51; see also Okiyama paragraph [0090]), wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute computer readable instructions so as to: start capturing a subject image by receiving an operation input by a user (Okiyama FIG. 15, step S2 “Start Recording”; see also Okiyama paragraph [0126]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Okiyama’s processor-control of image recording with the imaging device taught by the first and second embodiments of Okiyama. A person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine these prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of an imaging device that is processor-controlled, in order to allow the processor to both control operation of the imaging device as well as analyze images for pathology (see Okiyama paragraph {0090]).
Okiyama does not explicitly teach based on the captured subject image, output information indicating that the imaging device is not inserted into the assistance tool in a case where at least a part of the cover collar is not included as a result of determining whether or not at least the part of the cover collar is included in the subject image.
Venkataraman teaches based on the captured subject image, output information indicating that the imaging device is not inserted into the assistance tool in a case where at least a part of the cover collar is not included as a result of determining whether or not at least the part of the cover collar is included in the subject image (Venkataraman paragraph [0012], “if the second real-time video image is classified as being outside of the patient's body, the process continues receiving and processing real-time video images captured by the endoscope camera while keeping the light source turned off.”; Examiner interprets Venkataraman’s endoscope camera having ability to continue to record whether inside or outside of the patient would indicates, by the images captured when outside of the patient, that the camera is external to the patient, and thus the assistance tool taught by Okiyama).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine’s Venkataraman’s process of determining that the endoscope camera is external to the patient/assistance tool with the imaging device taught by Okiyama. A person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine these prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of an imaging device that is able to determine whether or not it is currently inside or outside of the patient/assistance tool, in order to protect the imaging device and/or users from harm (see Venkataraman paragraph [0057]).
Regarding Claim 12, a third embodiment of Okiyama discloses:
A computer program product embodying computer readable instructions stored on a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium (Okiyama FIG. 13, RAM 52, ROM 53, and CPU 51; see also Okiyama paragraph [0090]) for causing an imaging device to perform the steps of:
starting capturing a subject image by receiving an operation input by a user (Okiyama FIG. 15, step S1 “Has recording button been pressed”) and step S2 “Start Recording”; see also Okiyama paragraphs [0125] – [0126].
The third embodiment of Okiyama does not explicitly teach based on the captured subject image, outputting information indicating that the imaging device is not inserted into an assistance tool in a case where at least a part of a cover collar is not included as a result of determining whether or not at least the part of the cover collar is included in the subject image.
Venkataraman teaches based on the captured subject image, outputting information indicating that the imaging device is not inserted into the assistance tool in a case where at least a part of the cover collar is not included as a result of determining whether or not at least the part of the cover collar is included in the subject image (Venkataraman paragraph [0012], “if the second real-time video image is classified as being outside of the patient's body, the process continues receiving and processing real-time video images captured by the endoscope camera while keeping the light source turned off.”; Examiner interprets Venkataraman’s endoscope camera having ability to continue to record whether inside or outside of the patient would indicates, by the images captured when outside of the patient, that the camera is external to the patient, and thus the assistance tool taught by the third embodiment of Okiyama).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine’s Venkataraman’s process of determining that the endoscope camera is external to the patient/assistance tool with the imaging device taught by the third embodiment of Okiyama. A person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine these prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of an imaging device that is able to determine whether or not it is currently inside or outside of the patient/assistance tool, in order to protect the imaging device and/or users from harm (see Venkataraman paragraph [0057]).
The third embodiment of Okiyama in view of Venkataraman does not explicitly teach:
the assistance tool is inserted into an oral cavity for imaging an inner side of the oral cavity, and includes:
the main body in a cylindrical shape;
the opening being formed at an end portion of the main body in a direction opposite to a direction where the assistance tool is inserted into the oral cavity;
a cover being formed at an end portion of the main body in the direction where the assistance tool is inserted into the oral cavity; and
the cover collar being formed to connect the main body and the cover in a manner that the cover is disposed at the end portion of the main body in the direction where the assistance tool is inserted into the oral cavity.
A first embodiment of Okiyama teaches:
the assistance tool (Okiyama FIG. 1, intraoral imaging aid 3) is inserted into an oral cavity (Okiyama FIG. 1, oral cavity 71) for imaging an inner side of the oral cavity by an imaging device (Okiyama FIG. 3, imaging device 57), and includes:
the main body (Okiyama FIG. 2, cylindrical main body 31) in a cylindrical shape;
the opening (Okiyama FIG. 3, opening 32A) being formed at an end portion (Okiyama FIG. 3, proximal end 32) of the main body in a direction opposite to a direction where the assistance tool is inserted into the oral cavity (Okiyama FIG. 3, distal end 33, as inserted into a patient’s oral cavity in (Okiyama FIG. 1).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the first embodiment of Okiyama with the process taught by the third embodiment of Okiyama in view of Venkataraman. A person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine these prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of a method that utilizes the assistance tool taught in the first embodiment of Okiyama.
The first embodiment of Okiyama depicted in Okiyama FIG. 2 does not explicitly show a cover being formed at an end portion of the main body in the direction where the assistance tool is inserted into the oral cavity.
However, a second embodiment of Okiyama teaches a cover (Okiyama FIG. 2, window 33A; Okiyama paragraph [0061], “window 33A may be covered with a transparent member”) being formed at an end portion of the main body in the direction where the assistance tool is inserted into the oral cavity (Okiyama paragraph [0061], “window 33A is provided to give a visual field from the inside of the main body 31 to the outside of the main body 31, and here, the lens of the imaging device 57 in the main body 31 is exposed to the outside”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Okiyama’s covered window with the assistance tool taught by in the first and third embodiments of Okiyama in view of Venkataraman. A person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine these prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of an assistance tool that prevents patient fluids from reaching an imaging device (see imaging device 57 in Okiyama FIG. 3).
The first embodiment of Okiyama further discloses:
a cover collar (Okiyama FIG. 2, regulator 35) being formed to connect the main body (Okiyama FIG. 2, cylindrical main body 31) and the cover (Okiyama FIG. 2, covered window 33A) in a manner that the cover is disposed at the end portion of the main body in the direction where the assistance tool is inserted into the oral cavity (Okiyama FIG. 3, showing regulator 35 in the angle of view of imaging device 57).
Regarding Claim 13, a third embodiment of Okiyama discloses:
A method executed by at least one processor (Okiyama FIG. 13, RAM 52, ROM 53, and CPU 51), the method for causing the processor in an imaging device to execute a process,
the method comprising the computer readable instructions on the processor the steps of:
starting capturing a subject image by receiving an operation input by a user (Okiyama FIG. 15, step S1 “Has recording button been pressed”) and step S2 “Start Recording”; see also Okiyama paragraphs [0125] – [0126]).
The third embodiment of Okiyama does not explicitly teach outputting information indicating that the imaging device is not inserted into the assistance tool in a case where at least a part of the cover collar is not included as a result of determining whether or not at least the part of the cover collar is included in the subject image based on the captured subject image.
Venkataraman teaches outputting information indicating that the imaging device is not inserted into the assistance tool in a case where at least a part of the cover collar is not included as a result of determining whether or not at least the part of the cover collar is included in the subject image (Venkataraman paragraph [0012], “if the second real-time video image is classified as being outside of the patient's body, the process continues receiving and processing real-time video images captured by the endoscope camera while keeping the light source turned off.”; Examiner interprets Venkataraman’s endoscope camera having ability to continue to record whether inside or outside of the patient would indicates, by the images captured when outside of the patient, that the camera is external to the patient, and thus the assistance tool taught by the third embodiment of Okiyama).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine’s Venkataraman’s process of determining that the endoscope camera is external to the patient/assistance tool with the method taught by the third embodiment of Okiyama. A person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine these prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of an imaging device that is able to determine whether or not it is currently inside or outside of the patient/assistance tool, in order to protect the imaging device and/or users from harm (see Venkataraman paragraph [0057]).
The third embodiment of Okiyama in view of Venkataraman does not explicitly teach:
the imaging device being inserted into an interior of a main body of an assistance tool from the opening of an assistance tool, the assistance tool being inserted into an oral cavity for imaging an inner side of the oral cavity, and including:
the main body in a cylindrical shape;
the opening being formed at an end portion of the main body in a direction opposite to a direction where the assistance tool is inserted into the oral cavity;
a cover being formed at an end portion of the main body in the direction where the assistance tool is inserted into the oral cavity; and
a cover collar being formed to connect the main body and the cover in a manner that the cover is disposed at the end portion of the main body in the direction where the assistance tool is inserted into the oral cavity,
A first embodiment of Okiyama teaches:
the imaging device (Okiyama FIG. 3, imaging device 57) being inserted into an interior of a main body (Okiyama FIG. 2, cylindrical main body 31) of an assistance tool (Okiyama FIG. 1, intraoral imaging aid 3) from the opening (Okiyama FIG. 3, opening 32A) of an assistance tool (Okiyama FIG. 1, intraoral imaging aid 3), the assistance tool being inserted into an oral cavity (Okiyama FIG. 1, oral cavity 71) for imaging an inner side of the oral cavity, and including:
the main body (Okiyama FIG. 2, cylindrical main body 31) in a cylindrical shape;
the opening (Okiyama FIG. 3, opening 32A) being formed at an end portion (Okiyama FIG. 3, proximal end 32) of the main body in a direction opposite to a direction where the assistance tool is inserted into the oral cavity (Okiyama FIG. 3, distal end 33, as inserted into a patient’s oral cavity in Okiyama FIG. 1).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the imaging device described in the first embodiment of Okiyama with the method taught by the third embodiment of Okiyama in view of Venkataraman. A person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine these prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of an imaging device that is used to capture internal images of a patient.
The third and first embodiments of Okiyama in view of Venkataraman do not explicitly teach a cover being formed at an end portion of the main body in the direction where the assistance tool is inserted into the oral cavity,
However, a second embodiment of Okiyama teaches a cover (Okiyama FIG. 2, window 33A; Okiyama paragraph [0061], “window 33A may be covered with a transparent member”) being formed at an end portion of the main body in the direction where the assistance tool is inserted into the oral cavity (Okiyama paragraph [0061], “window 33A is provided to give a visual field from the inside of the main body 31 to the outside of the main body 31, and here, the lens of the imaging device 57 in the main body 31 is exposed to the outside”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Okiyama’s covered window with the method taught by third and first embodiments of Okiyama in view of Venkataraman. A person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine these prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of method that utilizes an assistance tool that prevents patient fluids from reaching an imaging device (see imaging device 57 in Okiyama FIG. 3).
The first embodiment of Okiyama further discloses:
a cover collar (Okiyama FIG. 2, regulator 35) being formed to connect the main body (Okiyama FIG. 2, cylindrical main body 31) and the cover (Okiyama FIG. 2, covered window 33A) in a manner that the cover is disposed at the end portion of the main body in the direction where the assistance tool is inserted into the oral cavity (Okiyama FIG. 3, showing regulator 35 in the angle of view of imaging device 57).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okiyama (US PGPUB 2021/0059534 – “Okiyama”) in view of Venkataraman (US PGPUB 2021/0015342 – “Venkataraman”) and Shiratani (US PGPUB 2019/0034800 – “Shiratani”).
Regarding Claim 11, Okiyama in view of Venkataraman teaches the features of Claim 10, as described above.
Venkataraman teaches in Venkataraman col. 13, lines 29-30 that the system used by Venkataraman can include an “intelligent processor unit (IPU)”, which is a specialized processor designed for machine learning and artificial intelligence workloads. However, Okiyama in view of Venkataraman does not explicitly teach the determination is made by inputting the captured subject image to a learned assistance tool attachment determination model obtained by learning based on a subject image for learning classified according to whether or not at least a part of the cover collar is included in the subject image.
Shiratani teaches the determination is made by inputting the captured subject image to a learned assistance tool attachment determination model obtained by learning based on a subject image for learning classified according to whether or not at least a part of the cover collar is included in the subject image (Shiratani FIG. 1, image recognition device 4; Shiratani paragraph [0022], “The image recognition device 4, which includes a convolutional neural network, acquires image data…and learns and recognizes the images.”. Examiner interprets Shiratani paragraph [0022] as teaching the well-known process of identifying images using a convolutional neural network (CNN). Thus, Shiratani teaches the process of recognizing what features are or are not found in an image, such as Okiyama’s regulator 35 (cover collar).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize Shiratani’s image recognition process with the imaging device taught by Okiyama in view of Venkataraman. A person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine these prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of an imaging device that can quickly and accurately identify objects and an environment shown in an image, in order to operate the imaging device in accordance with the identified environment.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-9 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.
Regarding dependent Claim 8, no combination of the identified prior art teaches or suggests wherein the positioning mechanism is connected to the main body with a connecting piece formed to be deformable or cuttable by applying a load in a predetermined direction.
Okiyama (US PGPUB 2021/0059534 – “Okiyama”) teaches an external positioning mechanism (Okiyama FIG. 4, flange 34) for positioning the imaging device and the assistance tool in the case where the imaging device is inserted from the opening (Examiner interprets Okiyama’s flange 34 as positioning the imaging device while entering the intraoral imaging aid 3).
Truckai et al. (US PGPUB 2018/0084971 – “Truckai”) teaches an internal positioning mechanism for positioning the imaging device and the assistance tool in the case where the imaging device is inserted from the opening (Truckai FIG. 2, tapered interior of distal end 152 of end cap 150 on sheath 120, which guide distal end of endoscope 108 into distal end of end cap 150).
However, neither Okiyama nor Truckai teach or suggest connecting the positioning mechanism to the main body with a connecting piece formed to be deformable or cuttable by applying a load in a predetermined direction. Furthermore, doing so would destroy the integrity of Okiyama’s flange and/or Truckai’s tapered interior, making them unsatisfactory for use.
Finally, there is no reason or suggestion provided in the prior art to modify the above prior art to teach the limitations as claimed above, and the only reason to modify the references would be based on Applicant's disclosure, which is impermissible hindsight reasoning.
Dependent Claim 9 is deemed allowable for depending on Claim 8.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JIM BOICE whose telephone number is (571)272-6565. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00am - 5:00pm Eastern.
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 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.
JIM BOICE
Examiner
Art Unit 3795
/JAMES EDWARD BOICE/Examiner, Art Unit 3795
/ANH TUAN T NGUYEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3795
03/22/26