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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/3/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the 112(b) rejection, Applicant has addressed the rejection by modifying the “predetermined examination” language with “observation step”. The Non-Final Rejection included several other 112(b) rejections that were not addressed in the Response. These are repeated below along with additional issues in the modified 112(b) Rejection, in view of the amendments.
Claim 1 recites “a classification result” in line 21. Claims 4 and 5 also refer to “a classification result”. It is not clear if the dependent claims are referring to the same “classification result” from claim 1 or different classification results. It is suggested that the antecedent basis be corrected for the dependent claims.
Claim 8 recites “a classification result”. Claims 11 and 12 also refer to “a classification result”. It Is not clear if the dependent claims are referring to the same “classification result” from claim 8 or different classification results. It is suggested that the antecedent basis be corrected for the dependent claims.
Claim 15 recites “a classification result”. Claims 18 and 19 also refer to “a classification result”. It is not clear if the dependent claims are referring to the same “classification result” from claim 15 or different classification results. It is suggested that the antecedent basis be corrected for the dependent claims.
Claim 15 recites “a computer” in line 1. Claims 17-19 that are dependent on claim 15 also recites “a computer”. It is not clear if the dependent claims are referring to the same “computer” from claim 15 or a separate computer processor. It is suggested that the antecedent basis be corrected for the dependent claims.
Claims 1, 4, 5, 8, 11, 12, 15, 18, and 19 recite the language “based on a classification result for each state”. The claims do not further elaborate on the “classification result” that is relied upon for determining the claimed parameter. The language “based on” is considered indefinite as it does not provide sufficient explanation on the “classification result” that is used to determine “actual time for each state” (as in claims 1, 8, and 15), or “accumulated time length for each state” (as in claims 4, 5, 11, 12, 18, and 19).
In view of the amendments, the 101 Rejection is withdrawn.
In view of the amendments, the 103 Rejection is withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 includes the term “state-specific evaluation index defined for each state of an examination target organ”. The term “state-specific evaluation index” is then acquired by the “examination time period evaluation apparatus” by comparing “the time evaluation index for each state with the actual time for each state” (claim 2)? Since the claims do not further refer to the specific term “state-specific evaluation index”, it is not clear if this term is based on the comparison step as claimed in claims 2, 9, and 16. It is suggested claims provide further clarification to this term, in view of the subject matter from dependent claims 2, 9, and 16 with respect to the “examination time period evaluation apparatus” by possibly incorporating claims 2, 9, and 16 into the corresponding independent claims so that it is clear how the “state-specific evaluation index” is tied to the “time evaluation index for each state” and the “actual time for each state”.
Claim 1 recites “a classification result” in line 21. Claims 4 and 5 also refer to “a classification result”. It is not clear if the dependent claims are referring to the same “classification result” from claim 1 or different classification results. It is suggested that the antecedent basis be corrected for the dependent claims.
Claim 8 recites “a classification result”. Claims 11 and 12 also refer to “a classification result”. It is not clear if the dependent claims are referring to the same “classification result” from claim 8 or different classification results. It is suggested that the antecedent basis be corrected for the dependent claims.
Claim 15 recites “a classification result”. Claims 18 and 19 also refer to “a classification result”. It is not clear if the dependent claims are referring to the same “classification result” from claim 15 or different classification results. It is suggested that the antecedent basis be corrected for the dependent claims.
Claim 15 recites “a computer” in line 1. Claims 17-19 that are dependent on claim 15 also recites “a computer”. It is not clear if the dependent claims are referring to the same “computer” from claim 15 or a separate computer processor. It is suggested that the antecedent basis be corrected for the dependent claims.
Claims 1, 4, 5, 8, 11, 12, 15, 18, and 19 recite the language “calculates an actual time for each state in the observation step based on a classification result for each state”. The claims do not further elaborate on the “classification result” that is relied upon for this “calculation of the actual time for each state in the observation step”. The language “based on a classification result” is considered indefinite as it does not provide sufficient explanation on the “classification result” that is used to determine “actual time for each state” (as in claims 1, 8, and 15), or “accumulated time length for each state” (as in claims 4, 5, 11, 12, 18, and 19).
“The examination time period classifier 36 roughly classifies the removal time period into three large groups: observation time period, detailed examination time period, and treatment time period. The examination time period classifier 36 classifies the observation time period into three small groups: natural light (WLI) observation time period, special light (NBI) observation time period, and washing/suction time period. The examination time period classifier 36 roughly classifies the treatment time period into three groups: biopsy forceps operating time period, snare operating time period, and washing/suction time period.” [0079].
“The examination time period classifier 36 calculates a net observation time period (8:57) by excluding, from the removal time period (17:21=17 min 21 s, the same applies hereinafter), the treatment time period (5:31), the detailed examination time period (1:40), and the washing/suction time period in the observation (1:13). The net observation time period (8:57) can also be obtained from the total of the natural light (WLI) observation time period (3:09) and the special light (NBI) observation time period (5:48). The examination time period classifier 36 can calculate the removal time period (11:50) other than the treatment by excluding the treatment time period (5:31) from the removal time period (17:21)” [0080].
It is suggested claim language with respect to the “examination time period classification apparatus” further clarify the process of classifying the state of the examination target organ with respect to the disclosure in the specification and/or the calculation of the actual time for each state in the observation step based on the “classification result for each state”.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-19 are objected to because of the following informalities: Upon further observation, the specification refers to an “an examination time period evaluator”, “endoscopic image acquisitor”, “an image identifier”, an examination time period classifier” [0050], while the claims include the term “apparatus”. To be consistent with the specification, it is suggested claim language be modified as per the specification. Appropriate correction is required.
Other Related Prior Art:
Koizumi et al. (2021/0338039):
Directed to an endoscope system that includes “an evaluation unit that evaluates an extent of a lesion by processing an image inside an organ image-captured by an electronic endoscope. The evaluation unit includes: an image evaluation value calculation unit that calculates an image evaluation value for the captured image; a lesion evaluation unit that calculates a representative evaluation value of image evaluation values from the image evaluation value for each of a plurality of spaces to evaluate the spread of the lesion; and a lesion evaluation adjustment unit that sets, for an empty section for which a representative evaluation value is not generated, as an estimated representative evaluation value, one image evaluation value for a non-empty section, or a representative evaluation value obtained on the basis of the image evaluation value, and that assigns the estimated representative evaluation value to the empty section” (abstract).
Directed to when the “image evaluation value is associated with the capture time or capture order information of the image, the lesion evaluation adjustment unit 220f preferably defines the image evaluation value corresponding to the image having the latest capture time or capture order among the images that are obtained by image-capturing the non-empty section located on the back side of the organ from the empty section, or the image evaluation value having the latest capture time or capture order as the estimated representative evaluation value among the image evaluation values of the image that is obtained by image-capturing the non-empty section located on the back side of the organ from the empty section. Originally, since if the empty section is evaluated, the image evaluation value that is closest to the capture time or capture order of the image used for the evaluation and corresponds to the capture time and capture order can be considered to be close to the image evaluation value or the representative evaluation value in the empty section, of the image evaluation value corresponding to the image with the latest capture time or capture order in which the non-empty section located on the back side of the organ is captured from the empty section or the image evaluation value of the image that is obtained by image-capturing the non-empty section located on the back side of the organ from the empty section, it is preferable to set the image evaluation value with the latest capture time or capture order as the estimated representative evaluation value in order to perform highly accurate evaluation” [0174].
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 BAISAKHI ROY whose telephone number is (571)272-7139. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7-3 EST.
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 at 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.
BR
/BAISAKHI ROY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3797
Prosecution Insights