DETAILED ACTION
Notice of 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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/05/2026 have been fully considered but they are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
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) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hauger (US 2018/0364470).
Regarding claim 15, Hauger discloses a method for operating a medical ([0002]: “surgery”, “tissue, cancer cells”) fluorescence observation device, the method comprising: recording a digital fluorescence-light color image in a second imaged spectrum using a fluorescence-light color camera; and recording a digital white-light color image in a first imaged spectrum using a white- light color camera (Fig. 1, [0134]: “fluorescence image detectors 13A and 13B”, “white-light image detectors 15A and 15B”), both the first imaged spectrum and the second imaged spectrum overlapping with a visible spectrum, wherein the first imaged spectrum comprises color bands of a first color space, the second imaged spectrum comprises three second color bands of a second color space, and wherein the color bands and the three second color bands are complementary to each other ([0105]: both reflected fluoresced light and white-light are within the visible spectrum, detected light are considered “complementary”). Hauger does not explicitly disclose that there be precisely “three” color bands. However, the complementary color bands between the visible-white and fluorescent types can be parsed into arbitrarily distinct sections as taught by Hauger. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to apply the complementary sections of Hauger, as to provide a precise definition of which colors are complementary to each other so as to enhance the combination of these two light types during post-processing.
Claim(s) 1, 10, and 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hauger (US 2018/0364470) in view of Steiner (US 2017/0280029, of record).
Regarding claims 1, 10, and 12-14, Hauger discloses an image processor and a computer-implemented image-processing method for a medical/surgical ([0002]: “surgery”, “tissue, cancer cells”) fluorescence observation device, the image processor being configured to: retrieve a digital white-light color image of an object recorded in a first imaged spectrum; and retrieve a digital fluorescence-light color image of the object recorded in a second imaged spectrum (Fig. 1, [0134]: “fluorescence image detectors 13A and 13B”, “white-light image detectors 15A and 15B”), the second imaged spectrum overlapping with a fluorescence emission spectrum of at least one fluorophore, both the first imaged spectrum and the second imaged spectrum overlapping with a visible spectrum, wherein the first imaged spectrum comprises color bands of a first color space, the second imaged spectrum comprises second color bands of a second color space, and wherein the color bands and the second color bands are complementary to each other ([0105]: both reflected fluoresced light and white-light are within the visible spectrum, “complementary”). Hauger does not explicitly disclose that there be precisely “three” color bands. However, the complementary color bands between the visible-white and fluorescent types can be parsed into arbitrarily distinct sections as taught by Hauger. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to apply the complementary sections of Hauger, as to provide a precise definition of which colors are complementary to each other so as to enhance the combination of these two light types during post-processing. Hauger does not explicitly disclose that the image processor is configured to be selectively operated in one of a first operational mode and a second operational mode, in the first operational mode, the image processor is configured to perform an image-combining, and in the second operational mode, the image processor is configured to perform a color-conversion and the image-combining; wherein the image-combining comprises generating a digital output color image by combining the digital white-light color image and the digital fluorescence-light color image; and wherein the color-conversion comprises applying at least one of a first color conversion function to be applied to the digital white-light color image or a second color conversion function to be applied to the digital fluorescence-light color image. However, Hauger discloses performing a superposition of images ([0094]: “images can be optimized and superimposed on one another for presentation purposes”) and Steiner teaches fluorescence image processing wherein image data may be converted from an initial color space to an alternate color space ([0040]…[0045]). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to apply the color space conversion of Steiner to the image processing of Hauger, as to provide enhanced and robust visualization of image data.
Claim(s) 3-5 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hauger (US 2018/0364470) in view of Steiner (US 2017/0280029, of record), as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Themelis (US 2017/0237958, of record).
Regarding claim 3, neither Hauger nor Steiner explicitly disclose that colors of the digital white-light color image, colors of the digital fluorescence-light color image, and colors of the digital output image are represented in a same color space. However, Themelis teaches this limitation ([0076]: the color space of the image data is presented in RGB). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to apply the color space of Themelis to the image data of Hauger and Steiner, as to provide a common and well-known color space.
Regarding claim 4, while neither Hauger nor Steiner explicitly disclose additive combining color space coordinates of white and fluorescent color image data, Themelis does teach adding color space values ([0077]). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to apply the additive combination of pixel values as taught by Themelis to the image processing of Hauger and Steiner, as to provide a conventional and intuitive manner of combining image data values.
Regarding claim 5, neither Hauger nor Steiner explicitly disclose that the first color conversion function is configured to convert a recorded color in the digital white-light color image to a color that is not within the first imaged spectrum, and/or the first conversion function is configured to convert a recorded color in the digital fluorescence-light color image to a color that is not within the second imaged spectrum. However, Steiner teaches fluorescence image processing wherein image data may be converted from an initial color space to an alternate color space ([0040]…[0045]). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to apply the color space conversion of Steiner to the image data of Themelis to the image processing of Hauger and Steiner, as to provide enhanced and robust visualization of image data.
Regarding claim 9, neither Hauger nor Steiner explicitly disclose that the first color conversion function and/or the second color conversion function is configured to convert a region of recorded colors into a larger region in a predetermined color space. However, Steiner teaches converting image data to a larger color space ([0040]; [0043]). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to apply the up-conversion of Steiner to the image data of Hauger and Steiner, as to provide color space accommodation for fluoresced signals.
Claim(s) 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hauger (US 2018/0364470) in view of Steiner (US 2017/0280029, of record), as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Iguchi (US 2003/0174216, of record).
Regarding claim 6, neither Hauger nor Steiner explicitly disclose that the first color conversion function that is configured to color-balance the digital white-light color image. However, Iguchi teaches conventional color balancing of image data ([0097]: “color balance” is corrected). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to apply the correction of Iguchi to the image data of Hauger and Steiner, as to provide corrected images.
Regarding claim 7, neither Hauger nor Steiner explicitly disclose that the first color conversion function is configured to shift a recorded color of the digital white-light color image to a first predetermined color in a predetermined color space, and/or the second color conversion function is configured to shift a recorded color of the digital fluorescence-light color image to a second predetermined color in the preterminal color space. However, Iguchi teaches conventional color conversion within a color space ([0098]…[0103]). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to apply the color conversion of Iguchi to the image data of Hauger and Steiner, as to provide corrected images.
Regarding claim 8, neither Hauger nor Steiner explicitly disclose that the image processor is configured to shift different recorded colors by a different amount and/or in a different direction in a predetermined color space. However, Iguchi teaches conventional color shifting within a color space ([0098]…[0103]). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to apply the color conversion of Iguchi to the image data of Hauger and Steiner, as to provide corrected images.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hauger (US 2018/0364470) in view of Steiner (US 2017/0280029, of record), as applied to claim 10 above, in view of Baumann (US 2021/0267443, of record).
Regarding claim 11, neither Hauger nor Steiner explicitly disclose that a fluorescence-light camera has a higher integration time than the white-light color camera. However, Baumann teaches that the integration time for a fluorescence light sensor may be higher than that of a visible light sensor ([0067]). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to apply the integration time of Baumann to the sensors of Hauger and Steiner, as to provide exposure control for different types of sensed data.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jason Ip whose telephone number is (571) 270-5387. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9a-5p 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, Christopher Koharski can be reached on (571) 272-7230. 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.
/JASON M IP/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3793
Prosecution Insights