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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Romanowski et al. (US 2018/0024341) in view of Ikeda et al. (US 2025/0139772).
Regarding claim 1, Romanowski discloses a system for a surgical microscope system (100; 400) (Figs. 1-14), the system comprising one or more processors (212) and one or more storage devices (paras. [0026, 0048]), wherein the system is configured to:
obtain first imaging sensor data of a view on a surgical site (321) from a first optical imaging sensor (103) of a microscope (120; 410) (100) of the surgical microscope system (Fig. 3; paras. [0038-0041]);
obtain second imaging sensor data of the view on the surgical site from a second sensor (348) of the microscope (Fig. 3; paras. [0038-0041]);
determine an extent of one or more anatomical features of the surgical site based on the second imaging sensor data (Figs. 3-4; paras. [0045-0046]).
Romanowski fails to explicitly disclose applying spatially varied noise filtering on the first imaging sensor data based on the extent of the one or more anatomical features of the surgical site.
However, Ikeda discloses a system for a surgical microscope system (Figs. 1-30) configured to apply spatially varied noise filtering (NR) on the first imaging sensor data based on the extent of the one or more anatomical features of the surgical site (paras. [0066, 0068, 0092]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate applying spatially varied noise filtering on the first imaging sensor data based on the extent of the one or more anatomical features of the surgical site, as in Ikeda, into the system of Romanowski to attain clearer image data.
Regarding claim 2, Romanowski discloses wherein the first imaging sensor data is based on fluorescence imaging (paras. [0038-0039]).
Regarding claim 3, Romanowski discloses wherein the second imaging sensor data is based on reflectance imaging (Fig. 3; paras. [0030, 0039]).
Regarding claim 4, Romanowski discloses wherein the system is configured to determine at least one feature of interest among the one or more anatomical features of the surgical site (paras. [0028, 0033, 0039]).
Ikeda further discloses applying the spatially varied noise filtering based on the extent of the at least one feature of interest (paras. [0066, 0068, 0088, 0092]).
Regarding claim 5, Romanowski discloses wherein the one or more anatomical features are one or more blood vessels, wherein the at least one feature of interest is at least one blood vessel emitting fluorescence emissions (paras. [0022-0023]).
Regarding claim 6, Romanowski discloses wherein the system is configured to determine the at least one feature of interest among the one or more anatomical features based on the first imaging sensor data (para. [0039]).
Regarding claim 7, Romanowski discloses wherein the system is configured to determine the at least one feature of interest among the one or more anatomical features based on a plurality of frames of the first imaging sensor data covering a pre-defined time interval or two or more pre-defined points in time (Fig. 7; paras. [0048, 0051, 0056]).
Regarding claims 8-9, Romanowski fails to explicitly disclose wherein the system is configured to subdivide the first imaging sensor data in a first portion and in a second portion, the first portion being based on the extent of at least a subset of the one or more anatomical features of the surgical site, and to apply a first noise filter on the first portion and a different second noise filter on the second portion, and wherein the system is configured to subdivide the first imaging sensor data such, that the first portion comprises the extent of at least the subset of the one or more anatomical features of the surgical site and the second portion comprises the remainder of the first imaging sensor data.
However, Ikeda discloses wherein the system is configured to subdivide the first imaging sensor data in a first portion and in a second portion (Figs. 4, 6), the first portion being based on the extent of at least a subset of the one or more anatomical features of the surgical site (para. [0113]), and to apply a first noise filter on the first portion and a different second noise filter on the second portion (Figs. 15-16; paras. [0066, 0091, 0131, 0137, 0152-0153]), and
wherein the system is configured to subdivide the first imaging sensor data such, that the first portion comprises the extent of at least the subset of the one or more anatomical features of the surgical site and the second portion comprises the remainder of the first imaging sensor data (Figs. 4, 6, 15-16; paras. [0091, 0131]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate wherein the system is configured to subdivide the first imaging sensor data in a first portion and in a second portion, the first portion being based on the extent of at least a subset of the one or more anatomical features of the surgical site, and to apply a first noise filter on the first portion and a different second noise filter on the second portion, and wherein the system is configured to subdivide the first imaging sensor data such, that the first portion comprises the extent of at least the subset of the one or more anatomical features of the surgical site and the second portion comprises the remainder of the first imaging sensor data, as in Ikeda, into the system of Romanowski to improve the result of cell analysis (Ikeda, para. [0068]).
Regarding claim 10, Romanowski discloses applying a pre-defined intensity pattern on the first portion of the first imaging sensor data (Figs. 7-9; paras. [0036, 0059]).
Ikeda further discloses the first noise filter (Figs. 15-16).
Regarding claim 11, Romanowski discloses wherein the pre-defined intensity pattern is configured to apply a uniform intensity distribution on the first portion or on coherent sub-portions of the first portion, or wherein the pre-defined intensity pattern is configured to apply a uniform intensity distribution along a transversal axis of coherent sub-portions of the first portion and to apply an intensity gradient along a longitudinal axis of the coherent sub-portions of the first portion (Figs. 7-9; paras. [0036, 0059]).
Regarding claim 12, Romanowski fails to explicitly disclose wherein the system is configured to subdivide the first portion into a plurality of coherent sub-portions based on the extent of at least the subset of the one or more anatomical features, and to apply the first noise filter separately on the coherent sub-portions.
However, Ikeda discloses wherein the system is configured to subdivide the first portion into a plurality of coherent sub-portions based on the extent of at least the subset of the one or more anatomical features (Figs. 4, 6), and to apply the first noise filter separately on the coherent sub-portions (Figs. 4, 6, 15-16; paras. [0066, 0091]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate wherein the system is configured to subdivide the first portion into a plurality of coherent sub-portions based on the extent of at least the subset of the one or more anatomical features, and to apply the first noise filter separately on the coherent sub-portions, as in Ikeda, into the method of Romanowski to improve the result of cell analysis (Ikeda, para. [0068]).
Regarding claim 13, Romanowski discloses wherein the one or more anatomical features are one or more blood vessels (para. [0022]).
Romanowski fails to explicitly disclose wherein the system is configured to subdivide the first portion into a plurality of coherent sub-portions based on branching points of the one or more blood vessels.
However, Ikeda discloses wherein the system is configured to subdivide the first portion into a plurality of coherent sub-portions based on branching points of the one or more blood vessels (Figs. 4, 6, 15-16; paras. [0066, 0088, 0091]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate wherein the system is configured to subdivide the first portion into a plurality of coherent sub-portions based on branching points of the one or more blood vessels, as in Ikeda, into the method of Romanowski to improve the result of cell analysis of a common tissue (Ikeda, paras. [0068, 0088]).
Regarding claim 14, Romanowski discloses applying a spatial low-pass filter on the second portion of the first imaging sensor data (para. [0031]).
Ikeda further discloses the second noise filter (Figs. 15-16).
Regarding claim 15, Romanowski fails to explicitly disclose wherein the system is configured to determine the extent of one or more anatomical features of the surgical site using a machine-learning model being trained to perform image segmentation and/or object detection.
However, Ikeda discloses wherein the system is configured to determine the extent of one or more anatomical features of the surgical site using a machine-learning model being trained to perform image segmentation and/or object detection (paras. [0081, 0100-0101]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate wherein the system is configured to determine the extent of one or more anatomical features of the surgical site using a machine-learning model being trained to perform image segmentation and/or object detection, as in Ikeda, into the method of Romanowski to improve the analysis accuracy.
Regarding claim 16, Romanowski discloses wherein the system is configured to determine the extent of the one or more anatomical features of the surgical site based on at least one of a characteristic color spectrum and a characteristic shape of the one or more anatomical features of the surgical site (paras. [0045, 0048, 0056-0057]).
Regarding claim 17, Romanowski discloses wherein the system is configured to generate a display signal for a display device (115, Figs. 1-3) of the surgical microscope system based on at least the filtered first imaging sensor data (paras. [0035-0036]).
Regarding claim 18, Romanowski discloses wherein the system is configured to generate a composite digital view of the surgical site based on the filtered first imaging sensor data and based on the second imaging sensor data, and to generate the display signal based on the composite digital view (Fig. 3; paras. [0035-0036, 0039]).
Regarding claim 19, Romanowski discloses a method for a surgical microscope system (Figs. 1-14), the method comprising:
obtaining first imaging sensor data of a view on a surgical site (321) from a first optical imaging sensor (103) of a microscope (100) of the surgical microscope system (Fig. 3; paras. [0038-0041]);
obtaining second imaging sensor data of the view on the surgical site from a second sensor (348) of the microscope (Fig. 3; paras. [0038-0041]);
determining an extent of one or more anatomical features of the surgical site based on the second imaging sensor data (Figs. 3-4; paras. [0045-0046]).
Romanowski fails to explicitly disclose applying spatially varied noise filtering on the first imaging sensor data based on the extent of the one or more anatomical features of the surgical site.
However, Ikeda discloses a method for a surgical microscope system (Figs. 1-30) configured to apply spatially varied noise filtering (NR) on the first imaging sensor data based on the extent of the one or more anatomical features of the surgical site (paras. [0066, 0068, 0092]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate applying spatially varied noise filtering on the first imaging sensor data based on the extent of the one or more anatomical features of the surgical site, as in Ikeda, into the method of Romanowski to attain clearer image data.
Regarding claim 20, Romanowski discloses a non-transitory, computer-readable medium comprising a program code that, when the program code is executed on a processor, a computer, or a programmable hardware component, causes the processor, computer, or programmable hardware component to perform the method according to claim 19 (Fig. 1A; paras. [0028, 0066]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAISLEY L WILSON whose telephone number is (571)270-5023. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:00am-5:00pm ET.
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, MICHAEL CALEY can be reached at 571-272-2286. 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.
/PAISLEY L WILSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871
Prosecution Insights