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 .
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.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 5 and 7 of U.S. Patent No. 12,178,387 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because every feature or element of the claim 1 of the instant application is recited in claim 7 of the Patent. Since the word “comprising” in the claim of the instant Application does not preclude further limitations of the claim of the Patent, the claim of the instant Application would be obvious in view of the claim of the Patent.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 8 of copending Application No. 18/867,593 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because every feature or element of the claim 1 of the instant application is recited in claims 8 and 17 of the copending Application. Since the word “comprising” in the claim of the instant Application does not preclude further limitations of the claim of the copending Application, the claim of the instant Application would be obvious in view of the claim of the copending Application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
35 U.S.C. 101 requires that a claimed invention must fall within one of the four eligible categories of invention (i.e. process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter) and must not be directed to subject matter encompassing a judicially recognized exception as interpreted by the courts. MPEP 2106. Three categories of subject matter are found to be judicially recognized exceptions to 35 U.S.C. § 101 (i.e. patent ineligible) (1) laws of nature, (2) physical phenomena, and (3) abstract ideas. MPEP 2106(II). To be patent-eligible, a claim directed to a judicial exception must as whole be directed to significantly more than the exception itself. See 2014 Interim Guidance on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility, 79 Fed. Reg. 74618, 74624 (Dec. 16, 2014). Hence, the claim must describe a process or product that applies the exception in a meaningful way, such that it is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. Id
Claims 1-5, 9-14, 30 and 59 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 1 is directed to accessing a first image sequence; accessing a second image sequence; detecting, based on an inter-frame analysis of the second images, an object in the second image sequence; and performing, based on the detected object, an operation with respect to the first image sequence, without additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Specifically, accessing the first and second image sequence, is referring to gathering data under insignificant Extra-solution activity e.g. pre-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)) ; detecting, based on an inter-frame analysis of the second images, an object in the second image sequence, referring to mental process of abstract idea, by visually observing the gathered data, the concepts are performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III); and performing an operation with respect to the first image sequence, further referring to mental process of comparing the visually detected object in the second image sequence with the first image sequence (As disclosed in Para [0055] of Applicant’s specification, wherein “objects recognized in the second images 120 may be correlated with objects in the first images 118, e.g., by comparing locations, shape similarity, etc”. Therefore, claim 1, meets the requirement of the step 2A, prong one of the guidelines for including one or more an abstract idea.
The claim is then considered under step 2A, prong two, for integrating the judicial exception into a practical application. Limitations that the courts have found indicative that an additional element (or combination of elements) may have integrated the exception into a practical application include:
• An improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, as discussed in MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a);
• Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.04(d)(2);
• Implementing a judicial exception with, or using a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(b);
• Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(c); and
• Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(e).
The courts have also identified limitations that did not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application:
• Merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f);
• Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(g); and
• Generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(h).
Based on the above conditions, Examiner does not believe that the language of claim 1 includes any of the qualifying conditions above. In fact, the limitations of claim 1 tend to lean more toward conditions that are not qualified i.e. “Generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(h)”. Therefore claim 1 fails step 2A, prong two.
Additionally, claim 1 is considered under step 2B to include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Limitations that the courts have found to qualify as "significantly more" when recited in a claim with a judicial exception include:
i. Improvements to the functioning of a computer, e.g., a modification of conventional Internet hyperlink protocol to dynamically produce a dual-source hybrid webpage, as discussed in DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258-59, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106-07 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (see MPEP § 2106.05(a));
ii. Improvements to any other technology or technical field, e.g., a modification of conventional rubber-molding processes to utilize a thermocouple inside the mold to constantly monitor the temperature and thus reduce under- and over-curing problems common in the art, as discussed in Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 191-92, 209 USPQ 1, 10 (1981) (see MPEP § 2106.05(a));
iii. Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine, e.g., a Fourdrinier machine (which is understood in the art to have a specific structure comprising a headbox, a paper-making wire, and a series of rolls) that is arranged in a particular way to optimize the speed of the machine while maintaining quality of the formed paper web, as discussed in Eibel Process Co. v. Minn. & Ont. Paper Co., 261 U.S. 45, 64-65 (1923) (see MPEP § 2106.05(b));
iv. Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, e.g., a process that transforms raw, uncured synthetic rubber into precision-molded synthetic rubber products, as discussed in Diehr, 450 U.S. at 184, 209 USPQ at 21 (see MPEP § 2106.05(c));
v. Adding a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, or adding unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful application, e.g., a non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of various computer components for filtering Internet content, as discussed in BASCOM Global Internet v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1350-51, 119 USPQ2d 1236, 1243 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)); or
vi. Other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, e.g., an immunization step that integrates an abstract idea of data comparison into a specific process of immunizing that lowers the risk that immunized patients will later develop chronic immune-mediated diseases, as discussed in Classen Immunotherapies Inc. v. Biogen IDEC, 659 F.3d 1057, 1066-68, 100 USPQ2d 1492, 1499-1502 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (see MPEP § 2106.05(e)).
Limitations that the courts have found not to be enough to qualify as "significantly more" when recited in a claim with a judicial exception include:
i. Adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, e.g., a limitation indicating that a particular function such as creating and maintaining electronic records is performed by a computer, as discussed in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225-26, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(f));
ii. Simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, as discussed in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(d));
iii. Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, e.g., mere data gathering in conjunction with a law of nature or abstract idea such as a step of obtaining information about credit card transactions so that the information can be analyzed by an abstract mental process, as discussed in CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)); or
iv. Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, e.g., a claim describing how the abstract idea of hedging could be used in the commodities and energy markets, as discussed in Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 595, 95 USPQ2d 1001, 1010 (2010) or a claim limiting the use of a mathematical formula to the petrochemical and oil-refining fields, as discussed in Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 588-90, 198 USPQ 193, 197-98 (1978) (MPEP § 2106.05(h)).
Based on the above qualifying conditions, Examiner is unable to identify one or more claimed elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim language leaning over to non-qualifying condition i.e. “ii. Simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception”.
Additionally, the claimed memory for storing and a processor for performing the steps, falls under generic computer that adds nothing more significant to the generic computer function. The courts do not distinguish between mental processes that are performed entirely in the human mind and mental processes that require a human to use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper or a slide rule) to perform the claim limitation (MPEP 2106.04(a)(III)). . . .. Nor do the courts distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer. Claims do recite a mental process when they contain limitations that can practically be performed in the human mind, including for example, observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions (MPEP 2106.04(a)(III)(A)). Examples of claims that recite mental processes include:
• a claim to "collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis," where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016);
Therefore claim 1 also fails step 2B as well, and hence not eligible under 101.
Regarding method claim 30 and storing medium claim 59, similar arguments above are applied, and they therefore are not eligible under 101.
Regarding claims 2-4, wherein the claimed gathered data, are referring to preconditions of the generating the images that are not currently part of the claim body for considerations. Therefore, they do not add further improvements or significantly more to the claim under 101. Therefore, the claims are not eligible.
Regarding claims 5 and 9, the accessing of a third image sequence, detecting of a second object, and performing the operation, are further refer to additional data gathering under insignificant extra-solution activity and further mental process of the abstract idea of detecting and performing, based on the observation, analysis and judgment as described above with respect to claim 1. Therefore, the claims are not eligible.
Regarding claims 12-14, wherein the conditions of light provided by an illuminant, capturing of images intermittently, and the sensor, for capturing of images, are referring to preconditions of the generating of the images that are not currently part of the claim body for considerations. Therefore, they do not add further improvements or significantly more to the claim under 101. Therefore, the claims are not eligible.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 5, 7-12, 15, 17, 30 and 59 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US 12,502,051 B2 to Gurevich et al (hereinafter ‘Gurevich’).
Regarding claim 1, Gurevich discloses a system (column 2, lines 7-9, wherein devices, apparatuses, systems, methods, and non-transitory storage media for imaging of a subject) comprising: a memory storing instructions; and one or more processors communicatively coupled to the memory and configured to execute the instructions to perform a process (column 5, lines 37-40, wherein one or more memories; and one or more programs, wherein the one or more programs are stored in the one or more memories and configured to be executed by the one or more processors) comprising: accessing a first image sequence comprising first images, the first images based on illumination, using visible-spectrum light, of a scene associated with a medical procedure (column 13, lines 11-14, and Fig. 1B, wherein the light source 14 can generate visible illumination light (such as any combination of red, green, and blue light) for generating visible (e.g., white light) images of the target object 1); accessing a second image sequence comprising second images, the second images based on illumination of the scene using non-visible spectrum light (column 3, lines 11-16, wherein the light source 14 can also produce fluorescence excitation illumination light for exciting the fluorescent markers 2 in the target object for generating fluorescence images); detecting, based on an inter-frame analysis of the second images, an object in the second image sequence (column 18, lines 22-25, wherein the system can identify an anatomical structure of interest from a fluorescence image, as the second image, because the anatomical structure appears more pronounced in the fluorescence image); and performing, based on the detected object, an operation with respect to the first image sequence (column 18, lines 25-27, wherein after the anatomical structure is identified, the system can automatically label the identified anatomical structure in the corresponding white light image, as the first image).
Regarding claim 2, Gurevich discloses wherein the non-visible spectrum light comprises fluoresced light (column 3, lines 11-16, wherein the light source 14 can also produce fluorescence excitation illumination light for exciting the fluorescent markers 2 in the target object for generating fluorescence images) .
Regarding claim 3, Gurevich discloses wherein the non-visible spectrum light comprises infrared light (column 13, lines 25-35, wherein the endoscope 12 may include a notch filter 131 that allows some or all (preferably, at least 80%) of fluorescence emission light (e.g., in a wavelength range of 830 nm to 870 nm) emitted by fluorescence markers 2 in the target object 1 to pass therethrough and that allows some or all (preferably, at least 80%) of visible light (e.g., in the wavelength range of 400 nm to 700 nm), such as visible illumination light reflected by the target object 1, to pass therethrough, but that blocks substantially all of the fluorescence excitation light (e.g., infrared light having a wavelength of 808 nm) that is used to excite fluorescence emission).
Regarding claim 5, Gurevich discloses wherein the process further comprises accessing a third image sequence comprising third images, detecting a second object in the third image sequence (column 21, lines 50-56, wherein FIG. 9 illustrates an exemplary method 900 for generating an intraoperative blue light image of a subject. FIG. 9 is an example of method 600 wherein the generated intraoperative fluorescence image is a generated intraoperative blue light image. Blue light imaging has been used to more easily visualize tumors or cancerous lesions in a bladder wall during surgery), and performing the operation based on the detected object and the second detected object (column 23, lines 27-31, and Fig. 9, wherein at block 910, the system extracts an outline of the tumor in the generated intraoperative blue light image. At block 912, the system displays, on the display, the outline of the tumor as an overlay on the intraoperative white light image.).
Regarding claim 7, Gurevich discloses wherein the process further comprises recognizing the object detected in the second image sequence, and wherein the operation comprises applying a label to the first image sequence based on the recognizing of the object (column 18, lines 22-27, wherein the system can identify an anatomical structure of interest from a fluorescence image, as the second image, because the anatomical structure appears more pronounced in the fluorescence image, wherein after the anatomical structure is identified, the system can automatically label the identified anatomical structure in the corresponding white light image, as the first image).
Regarding claim 8, Gurevich discloses wherein the operation comprises modifying pixels in a first image based on the object detected in the second image sequence (column 18, lines 19-21, wherein the system identifies an anatomical structure in the generated intraoperative fluorescence image and labels, inherently as modifying pixels, the intraoperative white light image based on the identification.).
Regarding claim 9, Gurevich discloses wherein the process further comprises accessing a third image sequence comprising third images (column 22, lines 54-56, wherein at block 906, the system obtains, from the generator, a generated, simulated, intraoperative blue light image of the subject, as the third image), detecting a second object in the third image sequence (column 23, lines 22-23, wherein at block 908, the system identifies a tumor, as the detected object, in the generated intraoperative blue light image), and performing a second operation with respect to the first image sequence based on the detected second object (column 23, lines 29-31, wherein at block 912, the system displays, on the display, the outline of the tumor as an overlay on the intraoperative white light image).
Regarding claim 10, Gurevich discloses wherein a subsequence of first images in the first image sequence chronologically corresponds to a second image in the second image sequence (column 3, lines 36-39, wherein the method comprises simultaneously displaying, inherently as chronologically captured corresponding images, the generated intraoperative fluorescence image and the intraoperative white light image on the display), wherein the process further comprises recognizing the object detected in the second image sequence (column 18, lines 22-25, wherein the system can identify an anatomical structure of interest from a fluorescence image, as the second image, because the anatomical structure appears more pronounced in the fluorescence image), wherein the recognized object comprises a recognized anatomical feature, and wherein an indication of the recognized anatomical feature is applied to the subsequence of first images (column 18, lines 25-27, wherein after the anatomical structure is identified, the system can automatically label the identified anatomical structure in the corresponding white light image, as the first image).
Regarding claim 11, Gurevich discloses wherein the applying comprises labeling or modifying the subsequence of first images(column 18, lines 25-27, wherein after the anatomical structure is identified, the system can automatically label the identified anatomical structure in the corresponding white light image, as the first image).
Regarding claim 12, Gurevich discloses wherein light provided by an illuminant in correspondence with capturing the second image sequence is imperceptible to human vision (column 13, lines 25-34, wherein the endoscope 12 may include a notch filter 131 that allows some or all (preferably, at least 80%) of fluorescence emission light (e.g., in a wavelength range of 830 nm to 870 nm, as invisible) emitted by fluorescence markers 2 in the target object 1 to pass therethrough and that allows some or all (preferably, at least 80%) of visible light (e.g., in the wavelength range of 400 nm to 700 nm)).
Regarding claim 15, Gurevich discloses wherein the process further comprises recognizing the object detected in the second image sequence, and wherein a label corresponding to the recognized object is displayed with the first image sequence (column 18, lines 22-27, wherein the system can identify an anatomical structure of interest from a fluorescence image, as the second image, because the anatomical structure appears more pronounced in the fluorescence image, wherein after the anatomical structure is identified, the system can automatically label the identified anatomical structure in the corresponding white light image, as the first image).
Regarding claim 17, Gurevich discloses wherein a computer-assisted medical system is controlled based on the detected object (column 3, lines 9-11, wherein after the anatomical structure is identified, the system can automatically label the identified anatomical structure in the corresponding white light image, inherently as controlling).
Regarding method claim 30, please refer to the corresponding system claim 1 for further teachings.
Regarding method claim 59, Gurevich discloses a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that, when executed, direct a processor of a computing device to perform a process (column 7, lines 55-60, wherein a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium stores one or more programs, the one or more programs comprising instructions, which when executed by one or more processors of an electronic device, cause the electronic device to perform any of the techniques described herein) comprising: please refer to the corresponding system claim 1 for further teachings.
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.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gurevich.
Regarding claim 16, Gurevich does not specifically disclose wherein a segmentation of a first image is displayed based on the detected object however, Gurevich discloses segmentation of the tumor in the white light image based on machine learning model trained with white light and fluorescence images (column 7, lines 67 through column 8, line 8, wherein receiving an intraoperative white light image of a subject, generating a semantic segmentation mask outlining at least one tumor in the intraoperative white light image, the semantic segmentation mask generated by a machine learning model trained using a plurality of training image pairs, wherein each training image pair comprises an intraoperative white light training image and an intraoperative fluorescence training image of a same tissue). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the segmentation of a first image of Gurevich with the detected object so that to extract an outline of a tumor from the segmentation mask (column 8, lines 8-9).
Claims 4, 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gurevich in view of US 6293911 B1 to Imaizumi et al (hereinafter ‘Imaizumi’).
Regarding claim 4, Gurevich does not specifically disclose wherein the first images are captured at a first rate of images-per-second, wherein the second images are captured at a second rate of images per second, and wherein the second rate is less than the first rate. Imaizumi discloses the first images are captured at a first rate of images-per-second, wherein the second images are captured at a second rate of images per second, and wherein the second rate is less than the first rate (column 37, lines 38-45, and Fig. 47, wherein the CCD 121 receives visible light rays of red, green, and blue or infrared fluorescence depending on the position of the parallel rotary filter 139. The CCD 121 is driven by a CCD drive circuit that is not shown synchronously with the rotation of the parallel rotary filter 139. In normal light observation, as first images, the CCD 121 forms 90 frame images per second. In fluorescence observation, as the second images, the CCD 121 forms 30 frame images per second (See FIG. 47)). Gurevich and Imaizumi are combinable because they both disclose image object detection. Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the first images are captured at a first rate of images-per-second, wherein the second images are captured at a second rate of images per second, and wherein the second rate is less than the first rate, of Imaizumi’s system with Gurevich’s in order to produce a brighter image. (column 37, lines 47-50).
Regarding claim 13, Gurevich does not specifically disclose wherein the second images are captured intermittently during capture of the first images such that some first images are captured for periods of time when no second images are. Imaizumi discloses the second images are captured intermittently during capture of the first images such that some first images are captured for periods of time when no second images are captured (column 41, lines 43-55 and Fig. 51, wherein reflected light and fluorescence stemming from the examined object 119 are passed by the diaphragm 152 for restricting an amount of light and excitation light cutoff filter 123, and imaged by the CCD 151. The excitation light cutoff filter 123 is designed to cut off excitation light components for exciting the antibody labeled by ICG and transmit fluorescence components and visible-light components. The excitation light cutoff filter 123 exhibits the spectroscopic characteristic of transmission shown in FIG. 38. The CCD 151 therefore receives red, green, and blue visible light rays or infrared fluorescence, as intermittent lighting, according to the positions of the RGB rotary filter 113 and spectrum restriction rotary filter 111). Gurevich and Imaizumi are combinable because they both disclose image object detection. Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the second images are captured intermittently during capture of the first images such that some first images are captured for periods of time when no second images are captured, of Imaizumi’s system with Gurevich’s so that to increase the intensity of fluorescence and produce a bright fluorescence image (column 41, lines 40-42).
Regarding claim 14, in the combination of Gurevich and Imaizumi, Imaizumi discloses wherein the first images and the second images are captured by a same sensor (column 41, lines 51-55, wherein the CCD 151 therefore receives red, green, and blue visible light rays or infrared fluorescence according to the positions of the RGB rotary filter 113 and spectrum restriction rotary filter 111.), and wherein the first images and the second images are captured at mutually exclusive times (Fig. 51, mutually exclusive image capturing times are depicted for visible and fluorescence images).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gurevich in view of CN 104582622 B to Azizian et al (hereinafter ‘Azizian’) (Please refer to the attached USPTO translation version).
Regarding claim 18, Gurevich does not specifically disclose wherein the computer-assisted medical system comprises a manipulator arm, and wherein the controlling comprises inhibiting movement of the manipulator arm based on the detected object. Azizian discloses the computer-assisted medical system comprises a manipulator arm, and wherein the controlling comprises inhibiting movement of the manipulator arm based on the detected object (Page 6, Para 12, wherein providing fly (no-fly zone) "or" virtual bracket (virtual fixture) to prevent appliance approaching key structure, in this embodiment, the marks the key structure before the task, and by marking the boundary using the double-mode imaging technology to track coordinate the use of the instrument motion is forcibly restricted in automatic or semi-automatic task period). Gurevich and Azizian are combinable because they both disclose image object detection. Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the computer-assisted medical system comprises a manipulator arm, and wherein the controlling comprises inhibiting movement of the manipulator arm based on the detected object, of Azizian’s system with Gurevich’s in order to protect the key structure (Page 4, Para 14).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 6 is 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 prior art or the prior art of record specifically, Gurevich does not disclose:
. . . . wherein an image capture device captures the first image sequence and the second image sequence while the image capture device and the scene are moving relative to each other, wherein a first image in the first image sequence is captured at a first time and a second image in the second image sequence is captured at a second time, and wherein the second image is geometrically transformed based on data indicating movement of the image capture device between the first time and the second time, of claim 6 combined with other features and elements of he claim.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHERVIN K NAKHJAVAN whose telephone number is (571)272-5731. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00-05:00 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, Sue Lefkowitz can be reached at (571)272-3638. 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.
/SHERVIN K NAKHJAVAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2672
Prosecution Insights