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 .
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 6/23/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-8 and 10-20 remain pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/23/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. While some dependent claims did require their rejections to be withdrawn and a new ground of rejection issued in view of the below cited sources, the majority of amendments are taught by the existing prior art sources cited in the non-final rejection. Specifically, claims 1-4, 10-13, 16-17, 19-20 remain rejected under the previously provided prior art.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 12-15 of remarks/arguments, filed 6/23/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 5-8, 14, 15, 18, under 35 USC 102(a)(1) and 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The new content introduced in the claims is not covered by the previously provided prior art. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of On (US 9621781 B2), Dianna (US 5801762 A), and Oka (US 8792000 B2).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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 1-4, 10-12, 16-17, 19-20, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Buschle (US 12266126 B2).
Regarding claims 1, 19, 20,
Buschle teaches:
An image processing apparatus for use with an endoscope, the image processing apparatus comprising: a processor comprising hardware, (Buschle Col. 16 Line 41 “The images 18, 20 recorded by the image sensor 16 will be transferred to a processor 26. The processor is preferably integrated in a computer”) the processor being configured to: obtain an object distance; based on a focus position of a focus lens, the focus position being a position when an object is focused (Buschle Col. 1 Line 65 “It is also possible to determine via the focus position of the medical instrument, such as e.g. of the endoscope, a working distance from the anatomical structure, in order to calculate and display real distances in the recorded image using this information. This can for example take place in the form of a scale.” Note: Buschle teaches that it is specifically the focus position of an endoscope that is used to determine the distance of an object being observed by the lens.) calculate dimensional characteristics defining information related to a difference between apparent dimensions of an object in an image acquired by the endoscope and actual dimensions,(Buschle Col. 18 Line 55, cited below, teaches that “dimensional characteristics” that define a relationship between apparent dimensions and the actual dimensions are calculated. That is to say, the actual dimensions (measured in real distance unit like meters) can be found based on the apparent dimensions (measured in pixels of the image) by finding dimensional characteristics that relate them. This characteristic is the depth information obtained by using the focus position to find how far away the object the endoscope is focused on is from the focus lens, and then using this depth info to obtain the real dimensional characteristics from the apparent.) the dimensional characteristics being calculated based on optical system information of an imaging optical system of the endoscope in a state in which the focus lens is located at the focus position;(Buschle Col. 18 Line 55, cited below, teaches that it is the focus position of the endoscope’s focus lens that is used in determining the dimensional characteristics to translate apparent dimensions into actual dimensions. A visual example of this can be seen in Fig. 8.) calculate scale information defining a relationship between the apparent dimensions and actual dimensions of the object calculated based on the object distance and the dimensional characteristics; (Buschle Col. 18 Line 55 “In the first image 18, the real start point 40-2 is thus determined by selecting the image start point 40-1, here in the middle point of the first image 18 and identifying the z coordinate via the corresponding depth map 56. In the second image 20, the real end point 42-2 is determined by accordingly selecting the image end point 42-1 and identifying the z coordinate via the corresponding depth map …. It may be thereby advantageous if each of the real start point 40-2 and the real end point 42-2 are selected in the image center at the pixel position (960, 540) after the endoscope 12 has been displaced … After determining the first 3D coordinates for the real start point 40-2 and the real end point 42-2, measurement result information 80, such as for example the distance between real start point 40-2 and real end point 42-2, can be calculated. As can be seen in FIG. 6 , this calculated distance is then displayed in the second image 20 … It can be seen that by way of the measuring method according to one embodiment, a plurality of distances (10 mm, 21 mm and 25 mm) between different features of the anatomical structure 22 can be calculated and displayed via the image sequence of a plurality of images. The medical specialist personnel are therefore capable of determining the dimension of the anatomical structure 22 reliably via different distance measurements”
PNG
media_image1.png
788
472
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Note: Buschle first seeks to calculate what it refers to as “real start points” and “real end points”, to do this depth information from a depth map is used to determine how far away a specific pixel point is from the camera. To obtain these real start/end points Buschle teaches that image start/end points are first identified, and their respective x and y coordinates from the image are obtained as seen in Fig. 8. The application’s specification describes the claims “apparent dimensions” in ¶34 “these apparent dimensions of the object S at the respective positions in the image”. As described apparent dimensions refer to positions in an image, the same concept taught in Buschle’s image start/end points. These image points or apparent dimensions are then translated into actual dimensions by calculating their position in 3D space using a depth map, allowing accurate three-dimensional position information about the object to be obtained as seen in Fig. 8. These are taught to be used directly in the calculation of distance, “distance between real start point and real end point, can be calculated”. This teaches the three-dimensional information of the real points, or the claims “actual dimensions”, being used to calculate scale information defining a relationship between them as the calculated distance displays accurate to-scale lengths of the anatomical object between the points.) and generate an indication pattern representing the actual dimensions based on the scale information. (
PNG
media_image2.png
412
274
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
380
332
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Buschle Col. 18 Line 55 teaches “a plurality of distances (10 mm, 21 mm and 25 mm) between different features of the anatomical structure 22 can be calculated and displayed”, how this display of distances is handled is taught in Col. 11 Line 33 “A disparity is thus also generated for the set points, which can be displayed with an overlay, and any measuring lines and areas, including the image target point, such that they appear to the observer on a 3D screen at the correct distance. The points and lines can be represented either in one plane or superimposed such that they appear to lie on the surface of the observed structure.” Note: In the figures we see the pattern of an object indicated by superimposed markings showing how distance and dimension information can be displayed. As seen in the citations these markings come from the actual dimension and distance information.)
Regarding claim 2,
Buschle teaches:
The image processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the optical system information includes pieces of information respectively corresponding to two or more positions of the focus lens,(Buschle Col. 18 Line 55, cited previously, teaches that information corresponding to two or more positions of the focus lens is obtained, where the info is the distance the object in focus is from the focus lens.) wherein the processor is configured to calculate the dimensional characteristics for the two or more positions of the focus lens, respectively, based on the optical system information corresponding to the two or more positions (Buschle Col. 18 Line 55 and Fig. 7 and 8, cited in the rejection of claim 1, specifically teach that information corresponding to two or more positions of the focus lens are obtained to calculate the dimensional characteristic. These pieces of information are the depth info, or the distance between that specific point/position of the object and focus lens. Bushcle specifically teaches that the dimensional characteristics for two positions is found based on their depth/distance from focus lens, where the dimensional characteristics are the actual distance that the two positions are from each other.)
Regarding claim 3,
Buschle teaches:
The image processing apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the optical system information includes at least one of an observation magnification, an amount of distortion, or a position of the optical axis center (Buschle Col. 11 Line 58“In the case of the present method, the left and right image are, to this end, rectified in particular before determining the depth information, i.e. the disparities and the depth map. Rectification means that distortion effects of the optical system and possible rotary arrangement of the image sensors in relation to one another are corrected in the images by way of calculation and removed and the images are aligned parallel to one another.” Note: Buschle specifically teaches that an amount of distortion is a known piece of info in its system, and that the distortion is corrected.)
Regarding claim 4,
Buschle teaches:
The image processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to acquire the pieces of information respectively corresponding to the two or more positions of the focus lens (Buschle Col. 18 Line 55, cited in the rejection of claim 1, clearly teaches that the info corresponding to the two positions that allows their dimensional characteristics to be found is their distance from the focus lens, as those two positions are positions the focus lens was focused on to obtain the object’s depth/distance from lens.)
Regarding claim 10,
Buschle teaches:
The image processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the scale information representing a relationship between an apparent distance from an optical axis center of the image and an actual distance from an optical center (Buschle Col. 18 Line 55, cited in the rejection of claim 1, teach that the scale info represents a relationship between apparent distance (distance in pixels on the image) and actual distance is found using the distance from “an optical axis center”. Buschle teaches distance from optical axis center is found as the optical axis center is simply the center of the endoscope’s lens, and Buschle already teaches finding the working distance from an object in focus to the focus lens.)
Regarding claim 11,
Buschle teaches:
The image processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to superimpose the indication pattern on the image(Buschle Fig. 11 and 12, cited in the rejection of claim 1, teach superimposing the indication pattern on the image.)
Regarding claim 12,
Buschle teaches:
The image processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to change a size of the indication pattern in accordance with the object distance (Buschle Col. 11 Line 45“With the described method a real start point or a real end point can be defined as a measurement point and marked, for example via an overlay on the current video image, and when changing the position of the image sensor the marking can automatically be moved along such that the measurement point will still be displayed as being assigned to the real point, despite the movement of the image sensor and the change of perspective. The measurement point therefore appears to be glued to the scene and to an object's surface at the correct position and in the correct depth. Measurement lines between two points can be displayed in the same manner while the image sensor is moved.” Note: Buschle Col. 18 Line 55 and Fig. 11 and 12, cited in the rejection of claim 1, teach examples of the indication pattern being overlayed. Here it is clarified that even if the image sensor, the endoscope capturing image data, is moved to change position the overlay will be autically moved to account for changes in depth and position, aka making it smaller or larger and changing its relative position in the image.)
Regarding claim 16,
Buschle teaches:
The image processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to generate three-dimensional information of the object using two or more images acquired by the endoscope (Buschle Col. 18 Line 55 and Fig. 7 and 8, cited in the rejection of claim 1, teach that 3D coordinate info of an object is calculated and obtained using multiple images captured by the endoscope, where the center point at each image has a known depth found for it using the focus position of the focus lens.)
Regarding claim 17,
Buschle teaches:
The image processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to calculate the scale information at a measurement point based on the three-dimensional information,(Buschle Col. 18 Line 55, cited in the rejection of claim 1, teach that the scale information which denotes how observable pixels in an image translate to real measurements of an object being captured are determined by the 3D info, such as the object’s depth from the focus lens.) the object distance, the dimensional chacteristics, wherein the processor is configured to generate the indication pattern indicating the actual dimensions at the measurement point (As stated previously, Buschle Col. 18 Line 55 teaches that a measurement point, aka the center of an image where the lens is focused on, has its actual dimensions found as the object’s distance from the lens is known. From this info the actual dimensions can be calculated to find how far points are away from each other to make an indication pattern to overlay on the image.)
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 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buschle (US 12266126 B2) in view of On (US 9621781 B2).
Regarding claim 5,
Buschle teaches:
The image processing apparatus according to claim 1,
In Buschle’s disclosed invention the focus lens is either fixed, or focused manually by the user, and thus does not teach auto focus evaluation values. This is taught by On which teaches wherein the processor is configured to calculate AF evaluation values, each of which indicates a degree of focus, for two or more images acquired during an AF operation of the endoscope,(On Col. 11 Line 41 “According to the first embodiment, the focus control device includes the focus control section 330 that drives (controls) the imaging optical system, the image acquisition section 310 that acquires a plurality of images captured through the imaging optical system at a differenlt imaging magnification, and the change-in-magnification detection section 320 that detects a change in magnification (see FIG. 1). The focus control section 330 calculates the AF evaluation value that indicates the focus state of the imaging optical system based on the image acquired by the image acquisition section 310 and the change in magnification detected by the image and change-in-magnification detection section 320, and drives the imaging optical system based on the AF evaluation value to control the focus of the imaging optical system.” Col. 14 Line 61“The above configuration makes it possible to implement an endoscope system that can appropriately calculate the AF evaluation value even when using the single-lens drive configuration.” Col. 12 Line 15 A plurality of AF evaluation values may be acquired at a plurality of timings that differ in the in-focus object plane position, and co pared in the same manner as the contrast value used for the contrast AF operation.” Note; On teaches that the degree of focus AF evaluation values for an endoscope are found,) wherein the processor is configured to determine the focus position based on the AF evaluation values(On Col. 11 Line 41 cited above teaches that the AF evaluation values/degrees of focus controls the focus state and focusing of the lens.)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing
date of the claimed invention to modify Buschle with On where the imaging system supports auto focusing and uses AF values to determine the focus position.
There are several reasons that would motivate one to do so, AF values or degrees of focus denote how sharp an image produced by a lens attempting to focus on an object is, by using AF values to determine lens position we can ensure the output image is as sharp/in focus as possible.
Regarding claim 6,
Buschle teaches:
The image processing apparatus according to claim 5,
Bushcle does not however teach contrast of an image is calculated from AF evaluation values. This is found in On which teaches wherein each of the AF evaluation values indicates a contrast of the image, (On Col. 6 Line 36 “When implementing the contrast AF operation, the contrast values may be calculated while changing the in-focus object plane position, and the relationship between a plurality of AF evaluation values may be calculated to determine the maximum value among the calculated contrast values.” Col. 10 Line 52 “The contrast value calculation section 332 performs a filtering process on the endoscopic image output from the image acquisition section 310 using the filter selected by the filter selection section 331 to calculate the contrast value … The lens control section 333 outputs the lens control signal that controls the objective lens 231 based on the contrast value output from the contrast value calculation section 332. A specific focus control method based on the contrast value is known as an AF technique … The contrast value is calculated by performing the filtering process on only the G signals of the endoscopic image. Specifically, since the G signal shows the largest local change in pixel value” Note: On teaches that the AF evaluation values indicate a contrast, and that the contrast values are calculated.) wherein the processor is configured to determine, as the focus position, a position of the focus lens where the contrast peaks(On Col. 15 Line 25 “The focus control section 330 is connected to the objective lens 231, and controls the magnification and the in-focus object plane position by controlling the objective lens 231 using a lens control signal.” Col. 11 Line 31 “characteristics of the high-pass filter are selected based on the detected change in magnification. The filtering process is performed on the endoscopic image using the high-pass filter to calculate the contrast value. The AF operation (function) is implemented by controlling the imaging optical system so that the calculated contrast value becomes a maximum.” Note: Here it is taught that the focus position of the lens is determined by a lens control signal. On Col. 10 Line 52, cited above, specifically teaches that this focus control is determined by the contrast value. The contrast value is obtained by filtering the is the largest local change in contrast, or in tother word the contrast peak.)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing
date of the claimed invention to modify Buschle with On where lens position is determined by contrast peaks of AF values.
There are several reasons that would motivate one to do so, contrast of AF values denote how sharp the image content is, thus choosing focus position where contrast peaks is the same as choosing the position where the image is the sharpest, or in other words the most in focus, a necessary step for capturing usable image data that the present invention and Buschle require.
Regarding claim 7,
Buschle teaches:
The image processing apparatus according to claim 5,
As Buschle does not detail AF values, it does not detail AF values with respect to the driving of a focus lens. This is found in On which teaches wherein the processor is configured to acquire drive information of the focus lens,( On Col. 11 Line 41, teaches that a dedicated part of the system that will drive the focus lens position where images will be captured at different focus positions. It is specifically taught that this part of the system which drives the focus lens calculates AF values and uses them to determine how to drive the lens) the drive information including a position of the focus lens during the AF operation from the endoscope, and read the position of the focus lens from the drive information(As stated previously from On Col. 11 Line 41, as the same part of the system that drives the focus lens by changing its position also performs the AF operation it is implicit that it would know its current position of the focus lens from the drive information, as it is the very same component that is also driving the focus lens.)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Buschle with On where the drive information, such as position of the focus lens, is known when performing an AF operation.
There are several reasons that would motivate one to do so, AF values denote how sharp image content is. Capturing high quality, in focus images, is a key requirement for performing accurate image analysis, by knowing the lens position where AF values the system will know which positions give high quality, sharp images, and which do not.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buschle (US 12266126 B2) in view of Dianna (US 5801762 A).
Regarding claim 8,
Buschle teaches:
The image processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to estimate the object distance from the focus position
While Bushcle teaches that the object distance can be known via focus position, it does not teach that this info can be stored into a look up table. This is taught by Dianna which teaches by using a lookup table indicating a relationship between the focus position and the object distance. (Dianna Col. 5 Line 4 “Further, in the preferred embodiment of the system of the present invention, the processor includes a first converter, such as a formula or a look-up table, for converting the focus position signal into an object distance signal,” Note: Dianna teaches that the focus position can be mapped to an object distance via a look up table.)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Buschle with Dianna where the object distance obtained at a specific focus position can be obtained by using a look up table that indicates a relationship between the two.
There are several reasons that would motivate one to do so, in a variety of contexts a user may be examining the same object over a period of time, if a user wishes to obtain the object distance from a focus position, they have already viewed rather than recalculating the distance a look up table could be employed to save the already calculated object distance mapped to the focus position to reduce computation.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buschle (US 12266126 B2) in view of Davidson (US 7634305 B2).
Regarding claim 13,
The image processing apparatus according to claim 1,
Buschle teaches:
The image processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to generate the indication pattern
Buschle does not however teach that its indication pattern can be “fixed” and unmoving while the distances for them update as the view changes. This is taught in Davidson which teaches wherein the processor is configured to generate the indication pattern having a fixed size and change a numerical value representing the actual dimensions attached to the indication pattern in accordance with the object distance (Davidson Col. 6 Line 64 “The user of an in-vivo imaging system employing an embodiment of the present invention may, for example estimate the size of an object viewed on the monitor or other image display device. This measurement estimate may be made manually or automatically. For example, by comparing the dimensions of an object viewed on the monitor, and comparing to the gridlines, a user may estimate the size of the object. Alternately, this estimation may be performed automatically. A user may, for example, choose two points on the display (e.g., using a mouse or other user interface with the processing unit), possibly corresponding to the edges of an object, and the data processor 14 unit may provide a range of distances between the two points indicated, depending on the distance between the lens and the object (e.g., “The two points indicated are between 1.7 and 3.6 cm apart.”)” Note: Davidson teaches a fixed size indication pattern as it details that for two fixed points on a display the true distance between them is automatically calculated depending on the lens to object distance, allowing the calculated distance to change as the view moves while maintaining the fixed position of the markings.)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing
date of the claimed invention to modify Buschle with Davidson where indication patterns overlayed to the medical imaging have a fixed size and location, updating their distance information rather than the positions of the markings.
There are several reasons that would motivate one to do so, Buschle already teaches markings overlayed that stick to the object being recorded to give the user an accurate scale of it. A fixed overlay would allow similar distance information to be conveyed but also allow the user to easily move the endoscope to view other areas and quickly assess the scale of present objects.
Claims 14, 15, 18, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buschle (US 12266126 B2) in view of Oka (US 8792000 B2).
Regarding claim 14,
Buschle teaches:
The image processing apparatus according to claim 1,
Buschle does not hoever teach the generation of an indication pattern which is distorted in response to the image having distortion. This is taught by Oka wherein the processor is configured to generate the indication pattern which is distorted in response to distortion of the image (Oka ¶5 “As the endoscope often captures the image of the physical object existing at the short range between several millimeters to dozens of centimeters, the above-described barrel-shaped distortion occurs significantly.” ¶16 “graded scale to be used for indicating the dimension of the physical object in the captured image…correct the graded scale shape by adding the distortion to the generated graded scale in the similar degree to the distortion caused by the distortion aberration;” Note: Oka teaches that an image captured by an endoscope may be distorted when captured at short range, and teaches that a scale that is overlayed on the image to indicate dimension info can be distorted to match the distortion in the image.)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing
date of the claimed invention to modify Buschle with Oka where an overlayed indication pattern is distorted to match the distortion of the image.
There are several reasons that would motivate one to do so, if we choose not to correct an image’s distortion then there will be no info loss by an incorrect correction, but overlaying indication patterns to convey distance and dimension information no longer becomes accurate in distorted areas. This could be solved to achieve an accurate overlay if the indication pattern overlayed is also distorted to match the image distortion.
Regarding claim 15,
The image processing apparatus according to claim 1,
Buschle does not however teach ranging wherein two or more ranging areas are set in the image, and the processor is configured to select a ranging area in a focus state, and to generate the indication pattern in response to the selected ranging area (Oka ¶105 “ FIG. 8 is an illustration describing the operation of the depth graded scale calculating part 532 shown in FIG. 6. FIG. 9 is an illustration describing the operation of the graded scale shape correcting part 190 shown in FIG. 5. In this embodiment, FIG. 9 (a) shows an example of the three-dimensional graded scale generated by the graded scale generating part 533 and FIG. 9 (b) shows an example of the shape-distorted graded scale with its shape being corrected by the graded scale shape correcting part 190.”
PNG
media_image4.png
560
914
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
687
757
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Note: The specifications define ranging areas as ¶61 “For example, as shown in Figs. 9A and 9B, multiple ranging areas C arranged in the horizontal direction and the vertical direction are set in the image B, and scale indications 51 and 52 are shown at one or more focused ranging areas C. Fig. 9B shows an image B of multiple circles having the same diameter and arranged at equal intervals in the horizontal direction and the vertical direction. The circles in the periphery contract and are deformed into ellipses by distortion.”
PNG
media_image6.png
596
298
media_image6.png
Greyscale
As seen from the provided Figures and citation from the specification the “ranging areas” are simply grid subdivisions of the input image. This is taught by Oka as seen above in Fig. 8 where the captured image is conceptually divided into similar grid subdivisions where other graded scales, aka indication pattern overlays, can be placed, like the graded scale seen in Fig. 9.)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing
date of the claimed invention to modify Buschle with Oka where ranging areas are determined and indication patterns can be generated in selected ranging areas.
There are several reasons that would motivate one to do so, when applying an overlay to an image where different parts of an image are distorted differently, rather than having to check the distortion amounts in every individual pixel your overlay may cover you could subdivide the image into ranging areas and simply check the distortion amount of the general area you wish to place the overlay.
Regarding claim 18,
Buschle teaches:
The image processing apparatus according to claim 17,
Bushcle does not directly teach finding distance or dimension info for points that have not been placed in the lens focus to find their working distance. Finding measurement points that are not positions where the lens was focused is taught in Oka which teaches wherein the measurement point is different from a position where a focus state is made, wherein the processor is configured to estimate an actual distance between the measurement point and the position, and to calculate the scale information at the measurement point based on the scale information (Oka ¶6 “calculates the three-dimensional coordinates of the representative points in a plural of captured images on the basis of the positional relationship of those representative points, and then displays the graded scale as an over layer onto the captured image on the basis of the calculated three-dimensional coordinates ” ¶105 “FIG. 9 is an illustration describing the operation of the graded scale shape correcting part 190 shown in FIG. 5. In this embodiment, FIG. 9 (a) shows an example of the three-dimensional graded scale generated by the graded scale generating part 533 and FIG. 9 (b) shows an example of the shape-distorted graded scale with its shape being corrected by the graded scale shape correcting part 190.”
PNG
media_image7.png
822
825
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
560
914
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Note: Oka teaches that representative points from multiple captured images are used to make a graded scale overlayed to the image. In the example of Fig. 7 that makes Fig. 9, two representative points A and B are recorded and the actual distance between the two is found. Oka then teaches that from these two measured points the graded scale, seen below in Fig. 9, can be produced. These two starting points that are at the center of the endoscope when images are taken, and have known distances from the endoscope lens, are the claims “positions”, the “measurement points” are all other points on the graded scale seen in Fig. 9. As the graded scale provides actual dimensional coordinate info, as clarified by Oka ¶6, taking any coordinate in the graded scale that its not one of the two input positions will give you a “measurement point”. As the actual coordinate of both the starting points and calculated measurement points is known, the distance between points is known. )
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine Buschle with Oka where the distance between measurement points and positions can be determined.
There are several reasons that would motivate one to do so, a user examining an object may need to know the distance and scale information for a large number of points on the object. Having to drive the endoscope to focus its lens on every individual point you may need would be tedious and slow, the efficiency of the system could be improved if points could have their distance and scale info obtained without having to use the focus position of the lens.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALAN GREGORY HAKALA whose telephone number is (571)272-7863. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00am-5:00pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, King Poon can be reached at (571) 270-0728. 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.
/ALAN GREGORY HAKALA/ Examiner, Art Unit 2617
/KING Y POON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2617
Prosecution Insights