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
Preliminary Amendment, filed 08/31/2011, has been entered.
Claims 1 - 24 are cancelled.
Claims 25 - 44 are pending.
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 obviousness-type 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); and 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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Claim 25 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S Patent Nos. 11,213,194; 12,126,287; and 12,458,290. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claims are similar to the claims in the U.S patents to meet the limitations claimed in the U.S patents. Table 1 shows comparison between the instant claims and the U.S patent claims.
This is a non-provisionally obviousness-type double patenting rejection because the conflicting claims have in fact been patented.
Table 1: Comparison of claims in instant Application No. 18/923385 vs. U.S Patent Nos. 11,213,194; 12,126,287; and 12,458,290
Appl. 18/923385
Appl. 16/663270 (US Pat. 12,126,887)
Appl. 16/859832 (US Pat. 11,213,194)
Appl. 18/656381 (US Pat. 12,458,290)
25. A system comprising:
an emitter comprising a plurality of sources of electromagnetic radiation that emits a plurality of pulses of electromagnetic radiation;
an image sensor comprising a pixel array that senses reflected electromagnetic radiation; and
a controller in electrical communication with the image sensor and the emitter;
wherein the pixel array senses the reflected electromagnetic radiation to generate a plurality of exposure frames that correspond in time with the plurality of pulses of electromagnetic radiation;
wherein the plurality of sources of electromagnetic radiation comprises one or more specialty sources of electromagnetic radiation comprising a spectral source of electromagnetic radiation configured to emit electromagnetic radiation with a waveband selected to elicit a spectral response from a tissue and one or more of:
a mapping source of electromagnetic radiation configured to emit electromagnetic radiation for generating mapping
information, or
a fluorescence excitation source of electromagnetic radiation configured to emit electromagnetic radiation for exciting a tissue;
wherein the plurality of exposure frames comprises one or more specialty exposure frames corresponding to the spectral source of electromagnetic radiation;
wherein the plurality of exposure frames comprises one or more specialty exposure frames
corresponding to one or more of:
the mapping source
of electromagnetic radiation, or the fluorescence excitation source of electromagnetic radiation; and
wherein one or more specialty exposure frames is used to generate a specialty overlay image frame.
1. A system comprising:
an emitter that emits a plurality of pulses of electromagnetic radiation;
an image sensor comprising a pixel array that senses reflected electromagnetic radiation; and
a controller comprising a processor in electrical communication with the image sensor and the emitter;
wherein the controller synchronizes timing of the plurality of pulses of electromagnetic radiation during a blanking period of the pixel array; and
wherein the pixel array senses the reflected electromagnetic radiation to generate a plurality of exposure frames that correspond in time with the plurality of pulses of electromagnetic radiation;
wherein the plurality of exposure frames comprises a laser mapping exposure frame sensed in response to the emitter pulsing electromagnetic radiation in a laser mapping pattern;
wherein the plurality of exposure frames further comprises one or more of: a multispectral exposure frame comprising data corresponding to a spectral response, wherein the pixel array senses the multispectral exposure frame in response to the emitter pulsing a wavelength of electromagnetic radiation that elicits the spectral response; or a fluorescence exposure frame comprising data corresponding to a fluorescence relaxation wavelength, wherein the pixel array senses the fluorescence exposure frame in response to the emitter pulsing a fluorescence excitation wavelength of electromagnetic radiation; and
wherein the laser mapping exposure frame comprises data for determining a surface topology of one or more objects within a scene and one or more of: a distance between two or more objects within the scene; a dimension of an object within the scene; or an angle between two or more objects within the scene.
1. A system comprising:
an emitter for emitting pulses of electromagnetic radiation;
an endoscope comprising an image sensor, wherein the image sensor comprises a pixel array for sensing reflected electromagnetic radiation;
a waveguide for communicating the pulses of electromagnetic radiation from the emitter to the endoscope; and
a controller in electronic communication with the emitter and the image sensor;
wherein the image sensor captures data for generating a plurality of exposure frames in response to the pulses of electromagnetic radiation by the emitter, and
wherein the plurality of exposure frames comprises a laser mapping exposure frame and further comprises two or more of:
a hyperspectral exposure frame for identifying a spectral response of a tissue, wherein the hyperspectral exposure frame is sensed in response to an emission of electromagnetic radiation having a wavelength from about 513 nm to about 545 nm; a hyperspectral exposure frame for identifying a spectral response of a tissue, wherein the hyperspectral exposure frame is sensed in response to an emission of electromagnetic radiation having a wavelength from about 565 nm to about 585 nm; a hyperspectral exposure frame for identifying a spectral response of a tissue, wherein the hyperspectral exposure frame is sensed in response to an emission of electromagnetic radiation having a wavelength from about 900 nm to about 1000 nm; or a fluorescence exposure frame for identifying a fluorescent reagent, wherein the fluorescence exposure frame is sensed in response to an emission of a fluorescence excitation wavelength; and wherein the laser mapping exposure frame comprises data for calculating a three-dimensional topographical map of a scene and is sensed in response to the emitter pulsing a laser mapping pattern.
1. A system for endoscopic visualization of a light deficient environment, the system comprising:
an emitter comprising a plurality of sources of electromagnetic radiation that emits a plurality of pulses of electromagnetic radiation, and
wherein the plurality of sources comprises: a first source that emits pulses of electromagnetic radiation of a first emission; and
a second source that emits pulses of electromagnetic radiation of a second emission;
an image sensor comprising a pixel array that accumulates electromagnetic radiation and reads out data to generate a plurality of exposure frames;
an image signal processor configured to output a plurality of overlay frames,
wherein each of the plurality of overlay frames comprise data from two or more of the plurality of exposure frames;
a controller in electronic communication with the emitter and the image sensor that synchronizes timing of the plurality of pulses of electromagnetic radiation with a sensor cycle of the image sensor;
wherein the first emission comprises a specialty emission comprising one or more of:
a fluorescence excitation pulse of electromagnetic radiation comprising electromagnetic radiation within a wavelength range between about 790 nm to about 815 nm,
a laser mapping pulse for generating laser mapping information, and a multispectral pulse of electromagnetic radiation for eliciting a spectral response from a tissue;
wherein the second emission comprises a specialty emission different from the first emission; wherein the first source and the second source are positioned offset to one another relative to a collection region.
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 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 of this title, 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 25, 27, 32, 35-39, 41 and 44 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blanquart et al. (“Blanquart”) [U.S Patent Application Pub. 2014/0163319 A1 provided in IDS filed on 10/22/2024] in view of Steinback et al. (“Steinback”) [US 2014/0276008 A1]
Regarding claim 25, Blanquart meets the claim limitations as follows:
A system comprising:
an emitter [Fig. 1: emitter 100; para. 0045: ‘The light emitter 100 … may be a laser emitter that is capable of emitting a red electromagnetic partition 105a, a blue electromagnetic partition 105b, and a green electromagnetic partition 105c and in any desired sequence] comprising a plurality of sources of electromagnetic radiation that emits a plurality of pulses [Fig. 1: Green T1, Blue T2 and Red T3] of electromagnetic radiation;
an image sensor comprising a pixel array that senses reflected electromagnetic radiation [Fig. 1: Pixel Array 120]; and
a controller [Fig. 1, 2; para. 0043-0047; 0055: ‘A pixel array of an image sensor may be paired with an emitter electronically’; ‘Computing device 150’] in electrical communication with the image sensor and the emitter;
wherein the pixel array senses the reflected electromagnetic radiation to generate a plurality of exposure frames (i.e. laser exposure frames: RG1BG2RG1BG2) [Fig. 1, 2A-2D, 5, 14-17: RG1BG2RG1BG2; para. 0044-0045, 0088-0089, 0100-0101: ‘the form of a laser’] that correspond in time with the plurality of pulses of electromagnetic radiation [Fig. 5, 6: readout frame duration ‘202’ corresponding in time with pulse 1 ‘302’; para. 0064: ‘a sensor may be cycled many times in order to receive data for each pulsed color (e.g., Red, Green, Blue)’; para. 0073];
wherein the plurality of sources of electromagnetic radiation (e.g., Red, Green, Blue) [Fig. 1] comprises one or more specialty sources of electromagnetic radiation comprising a spectral source (e.g., Red, Green, Blue or IR, UV, X-ray) [para. 0044-0045, 0172] of electromagnetic radiation configured to emit electromagnetic radiation with a waveband (e.g., Red, Green, Blue or IR, UV, X-ray) [para. 0044-0045, 0172] selected to elicit a spectral response from a tissue (i.e. endoscope) [para. 0033] and one or more of:
a mapping source of electromagnetic radiation (i.e. ‘a pulse cycle pattern’) [para. 0076: ‘a pulse cycle pattern’: Green, Red, Blue, Green, Red, Blue, IR, (Repeat)] configured to emit electromagnetic radiation for generating mapping information, or a fluorescence excitation source of electromagnetic radiation configured to emit electromagnetic radiation for exciting a tissue;
wherein the plurality of exposure frames [Fig. 5, 6, 7; para. 0073-0076] comprises one or more specialty exposure frames (e.g., Red, Green, Blue or IR, UV, X-ray) [Fig. 6: ‘two distinct processes’ for ‘recording a frame of video for full spectrum light ‘612’ and partitioned spectrum light ‘622’, ‘626’, ‘630’; para. 0044-0045, 0172] corresponding to the spectral source of electromagnetic radiation;
wherein the plurality of exposure frames comprises one or more specialty exposure frames corresponding to one or more of [Fig. 5, 6, 7; para. 0073-0076]: the mapping source of electromagnetic radiation,
wherein one or more specialty exposure frames is used to generate a specialty
Blanquart does not disclose explicitly the following claim limitations (emphasis added):
… and one or more of:
a mapping source of electromagnetic radiation configured to emit …, or a fluorescence excitation source of electromagnetic radiation configured to emit electromagnetic radiation for exciting a tissue;
wherein the plurality of exposure frames comprises one or more specialty exposure frames …;
wherein the plurality of exposure frames comprises one or more specialty exposure frames corresponding to one or more of: …, or the fluorescence excitation source of electromagnetic radiation; and
wherein one or more specialty exposure frames is used to generate a specialty overlay image frame.
However in the same field of endeavor Steinback discloses the deficient claim as follows:
… and one or more of:
a mapping source of electromagnetic radiation configured to emit …, or a fluorescence excitation source of electromagnetic radiation [Fig. 5; para. 0010-0012, 0084, 0094-0098; ‘a second light engine … for exciting a first fluorophore in the target’; ‘a hexagonal light pipe for homogenizing both light sources’] configured to emit electromagnetic radiation for exciting a tissue [Fig. 2A, 6-11; para. 0007, 0081: ‘specific tissues’; ‘overlying tissue’];
wherein the plurality of exposure frames comprises one or more specialty exposure frames …;
wherein the plurality of exposure frames comprises one or more specialty exposure frames [Fig. 5, 6-11; para. 0132: ‘simultaneous and/or overlapping viewing of white light and fluorescent images’] corresponding to one or more of: the mapping source of electromagnetic radiation, or the fluorescence excitation source of electromagnetic radiation [Fig. 5; para. 0010-0012, 0084, 0094-0098; ‘a second light engine … for exciting a first fluorophore in the target’]; and
wherein one or more specialty exposure frames is used to generate a specialty overlay image frame [Fig. 5-11; para. 0077, 0109, 0130: ‘a pseudocolor, ratio encoded image is overlayed on top of a black and white (BW) version of the white light reflection image’; ‘Combined color and fluorescent image’; Section “Imaging Algorithms and Methods”: ‘the reflectance and fluorescence images are displayed overlapping on a single monitor’].
Blanquart and Steinback are combinable because they are from the same field of endoscope imaging.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine teachings of Blanquart and Steinback as motivation to have fluorescence images superimposed for “guided surgery” [Steinback: Abstract, para. 0004-0008].
Regarding claim 27, Blanquart meets the claim limitations set forth in claim 25.
Blanquart does not disclose explicitly the following claim limitations:
The system of claim 25, wherein two or more specialty exposure frames are combined to form the specialty overlay image frame.
However in the same field of endeavor Steinback discloses the deficient claim as follows:
wherein two or more specialty exposure frames (i.e. ‘the reflectance and fluorescence images are displayed overlapping on a single monitor’ or ‘Full color image overlayed with fluorescent image’) [Fig. 5-11] are combined to form the specialty overlay image frame [Fig. 5-11; para. 0077, 0109, 0130: ‘a pseudocolor, ratio encoded image is overlayed on top of a black and white (BW) version of the white light reflection image’; ‘Combined color and fluorescent image’; Section “Imaging Algorithms and Methods”: ‘the reflectance and fluorescence images are displayed overlapping on a single monitor’ para. 0078 disclose A) Color image only; B) Fluorescent image only C) Combined color and fluorescent image; para. 0171, 0128: ‘the computer … overlays the two images …’; ‘alternating on a single monitor].
Blanquart and Steinback are combinable because they are from the same field of endoscope imaging.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine teachings of Blanquart and Steinback as motivation to have fluorescence images superimposed for “guided surgery” [Steinback: Abstract, para. 0004-0008].
Regarding claim 32, Blanquart meets the claim limitations as follows:
The system of claim 25, wherein the controller is configured to modulate a magnitude [Fig. 7B; para. 0087, 0147: ‘the different light intensities … modulating the light power …’] or a duration [Fig. 7A; para. 0087, 0147: ‘the different light intensities … modulating the light pulse width or duration’], or both the magnitude and the duration [Fig. 7C; para. 0087, 0147], of a pulse of electromagnetic radiation from a first exposure frame capture to a subsequent exposure frame capture.
Regarding claim 35, Blanquart meets the claim limitations as follows:
The system of claim 25, wherein the controller is configured to synchronize the emitter and the image sensor, such that the emitter emits pulses of electromagnetic radiation during a blanking period of the image sensor [Fig. 2D, para. 0064-0066: ‘the blanking time 216’; ‘a controlled and pulsed light 230 during the blanking 216’], wherein the blanking period is variable [Fig. 4, 7; para. 0064-0066, 0089: ‘varying the duration and magnitude of the emitted electromagnetic pulse’; ‘to program different blanking times with a repeating pattern’].
Regarding claim 36, Blanquart meets the claim limitations as follows:
The system of claim 35, wherein the blanking period is a plurality of blanking periods, and wherein the plurality of blanking period is variable from a first exposure frame capture to a subsequent exposure frame capture [Fig. 4, 7; para. 0064-0066, 0089: ‘varying the duration and magnitude of the emitted electromagnetic pulse’; ‘to program different blanking times with a repeating pattern’].
Regarding claim 37, Blanquart meets the claim limitations as follows:
The system of claim 25, wherein the plurality of sources of electromagnetic radiation are pulsed sequentially in a pulse pattern [para. 0076: ‘a pulse cycle pattern as follows: G R B G R B IR; (Repeat)’]; and wherein one of the one or more specialty sources of electromagnetic radiation is pulsed at a different frequency [para. 0076: ‘a pulse cycle pattern as follows: G R B G R B IR; (Repeat)’] from that of the other plurality of sources of electromagnetic radiation within the pulse pattern according to a user input [para. 0102: ‘the light is controlled and even provided by a user’].
Regarding claim 38, Blanquart meets the claim limitations as follows:
The system of claim 37, wherein one of the one or more specialty sources of electromagnetic radiation is pulsed at lesser frequency than that of the other plurality of sources of electromagnetic radiation [para. 0076: ‘a pulse cycle pattern as follows: G R B G R B IR; (Repeat)’] and results in an increase of a cycling speed of the image sensor [Fig. 7E; para. 0027, 0089, 0101: ‘Different frames’; ‘different frame periods’.].
Regarding claim 39, Blanquart meets the claim limitations as follows:
The system of claim 25, wherein the controller is further configured to adjust (i.e. adjust red light at lesser intensity than) a sequence of the plurality of pulses of electromagnetic radiation emitted by the emitter based on an illumination threshold (i.e. ‘blue light’) [para. 0089, 0093], wherein the illumination threshold determines proper illumination of a scene in a light deficient environment (i.e. ‘to produce a correctly exposed image’) [Fig. 7; para. 0090, 0093, 0104: ‘light emitter may be adjusted to compensate for the differences in the energy values’].
Regarding claim 41, Blanquart meets the claim limitations as follows:
The system of claim 25, wherein the pixel array of the image sensor is a dual sensitivity pixel array comprising a plurality of pixels sensitive to long exposure and a plurality of pixels sensitive to short exposure [para. 0150: ‘blue light from the start of the long exposure and … red at the point that the short exposure pixels are turned on’];
Regarding claim 44, Blanquart meets the claim limitations as follows:
The system of claim 25, wherein the spectral source of electromagnetic radiation [Fig. 1: emitter 100; para. 0045: ‘The light emitter 100 … may be a laser emitter that is capable of emitting a red electromagnetic partition 105a, a blue electromagnetic partition 105b, and a green electromagnetic partition 105c and in any desired sequence] is a plurality of spectral sources of electromagnetic radiation; wherein the electromagnetic radiation emitted from each of the plurality of spectral sources [Fig. 1: Green T1, Blue T2 and Red T3] elicits a different spectral response from a tissue (i.e. fluorescence) [para. 0002, 0026: ‘an endoscope’, a tissue is not shown], and wherein the image sensor [Fig. 1: Pixel Array 120; para. 0043-0047; 0055: ‘A pixel array of an image sensor may be paired with an emitter electronically’] receives electromagnetic radiation associated with each different spectral response to generate a plurality of specialty exposure frames (i.e. laser exposure frames: RG1BG2RG1BG2) [Fig. 1, 2A-2D, 5, 14-17: RG1BG2RG1BG2; para. 0044-0045, 0088-0089, 0100-0101: ‘the form of a laser’] corresponding to the plurality of spectral sources [Fig. 5, 6: readout frame duration ‘202’ corresponding in time with pulse 1 ‘302’; para. 0064: ‘a sensor may be cycled many times in order to receive data for each pulsed color (e.g., Red, Green, Blue)’; para. 0073];.
Blanquart does not disclose explicitly the following claim limitations (emphasis added):
wherein the electromagnetic radiation emitted from each of the plurality of spectral sources elicits a different spectral response from a tissue.
However in the same field of endeavor Steinback discloses the deficient claim as follows:
wherein the electromagnetic radiation emitted from each of the plurality of spectral sources elicits a different spectral response from a tissue (i.e. ‘a plurality of detectors for detecting reflectance and fluorescence from the target’) [Fig. 2A, 5-11; para. 0007, 0010-0015, 0081, 0084, 0094-0098; ‘a second light engine … for exciting a first fluorophore in the target’; ‘a hexagonal light pipe for homogenizing both light sources’; ‘specific tissues’; ‘overlying tissue’; para. 0077, 0109, 0130: ‘a pseudocolor, ratio encoded image is overlayed on top of a black and white (BW) version of the white light reflection image’; ‘Combined color and fluorescent image’; Section “Imaging Algorithms and Methods”: ‘the reflectance and fluorescence images are displayed overlapping on a single monitor’].
Blanquart and Steinback are combinable because they are from the same field of endoscope imaging.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine teachings of Blanquart and Steinback as motivation to have fluorescence images superimposed for “guided surgery” [Steinback: Abstract, para. 0004-0008].
Claim 26 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blanquart in view of Steinback in further view of Fengler et al. (“Fengler”) [US 2017/0209050 A1 provided in IDS filed on 10/22/2024]
Regarding claim 26, Blanquart meets the claim limitations set forth in claim 25.
Blanquart does not disclose explicitly the following claim limitations:
The system of claim 25, wherein the specialty overlay image frame comprises color image data and specialty image data, wherein the specialty image data comprises one or more of: data from a spectral exposure frame; data from a mapping exposure frame; or data from a fluorescence exposure frame; wherein the system is configured to receive user input that determines which of the specialty image data from the one or more specialty exposure frames is visible during display.
However in the same field of endeavor Steinback discloses the deficient claim as follows:
wherein the specialty overlay image frame (i.e. ‘the reflectance and fluorescence images are displayed overlapping on a single monitor’ or ‘Full color image overlayed with fluorescent image’) [Fig. 5-11] comprises color image data and specialty image data, wherein the specialty image data comprises one or more of: data from a spectral exposure frame (i.e. ‘Full color image’); data from a mapping exposure frame; or data from a fluorescence exposure frame (i.e. ‘fluorescent image’); wherein the system is configured to receive user input that determines which of the specialty image data from the one or more specialty exposure frames is visible during display [Fig. 6; para. 0078 disclose A) Color image only; B) Fluorescent image only C) Combined color and fluorescent image; para. 0078, 0171, 0128: ‘the three modes of image display’; ‘the computer … overlays the two images …’; ‘alternating on a single monitor].
Blanquart and Steinback are combinable because they are from the same field of endoscope imaging.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine teachings of Blanquart and Steinback as motivation to have fluorescence images superimposed for “guided surgery” [Steinback: Abstract, para. 0004-0008].
Steinback does not disclose explicitly the following claim limitations (emphasis added):
wherein the specialty overlay image frame comprises color image data and specialty image data, wherein the specialty image data comprises one or more of: data from a spectral exposure frame; data from a mapping exposure frame; or data from a fluorescence exposure frame; wherein the system is configured to receive user input that determines which of the specialty image data from the one or more specialty exposure frames is visible during display.
However in the same field of endeavor Fengler discloses the deficient claim as follows:
wherein the specialty overlay image frame comprises color image data and specialty image data, wherein the specialty image data comprises one or more of: data from a spectral exposure frame; data from a mapping exposure frame; or data from a fluorescence exposure frame; wherein the system is configured to receive user input [para. 0170: ‘The manner in which the fluorescence images are displayed may be selected by an operator in a user interface’] that determines which of the specialty image data from the one or more specialty exposure frames is visible during display.
Blanquart, Steinback and Fengler are combinable because they are from the same field of endoscope imaging.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine teachings of Blanquart and Steinback as motivation to include a user interface for an operator to select the manner in which the fluorescence image [Steinback: Abstract, para. 0004-0008; Fengler: para. 0170].
Claims 28 and 29 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blanquart in view of Steinback in further view of Benaron et al. (“Benaron”) [US 2004/0010192 provided in IDS filed on 10/22/2024]
Regarding claim 28, Blanquart meets the claim limitations set forth in claim 25.
Blanquart does not disclose explicitly the following claim limitations:
The system of claim 25, wherein the specialty exposure frame comprises a fluorescence exposure frame sensed in response to an emission by the fluorescence excitation source, and wherein the controller is further configured to provide the fluorescence exposure frame to a corresponding system that determines a location of a tissue structure within the scene based on the fluorescence exposure frame.
However in the same field of endeavor Steinback discloses the deficient claim as follows:
wherein the specialty exposure frame comprises a fluorescence exposure frame sensed in response to an emission by the fluorescence excitation source (i.e. ‘the reflectance and fluorescence images are displayed overlapping on a single monitor’ or ‘Full color image overlayed with fluorescent image’) [Fig. 5-11; para. 0078 disclose A) Color image only; B) Fluorescent image only C) Combined color and fluorescent image; para. 0171, 0128: ‘the computer … overlays the two images …’; ‘alternating on a single monitor], and wherein the controller is further configured to provide the fluorescence exposure frame to a corresponding system (e.g. display) that determines a location of a tissue structure within the scene based on the fluorescence exposure frame [Fig. 5-11; para. 0132: ‘a fluorescence image for indicating the location of targeted fluorescence molecules (fluorophore)’].
Blanquart and Steinback are combinable because they are from the same field of endoscope imaging.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine teachings of Blanquart and Steinback as motivation to have fluorescence images superimposed for “guided surgery” [Steinback: Abstract, para. 0004-0008].
Steinback does not disclose explicitly the following claim limitations (emphasis added):
wherein the controller is further configured to provide the fluorescence exposure frame to a corresponding system that determines a location of a tissue structure within the scene based on the fluorescence exposure frame.
However in the same field of endeavor Benaron discloses the deficient claim as follows:
wherein the controller is further configured to provide the fluorescence exposure frame to a corresponding system [Fig. 1: Computer 181; Tissue Region ‘131’; para. 0076: ‘for multiple regions of the tissue to be imaged and later compared’; ‘to yield an output that is a measure of the distribution and localization of a contrast agent’] that determines a location of a tissue structure within the scene based on the fluorescence exposure frame [Fig. 2; para. 0079: disclose ‘resulting display image 197 shows a black and white view of the patient …, overlaid by a color tissue image indicating the location, depth, and/or cell number of the target tissue].
Blanquart, Steinback and Benaron are combinable because they are from the same field of endoscope imaging.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine teachings of Blanquart Steinback and Benaron as motivation to include a method disclosed in Benaron, Fig. 2 (i.e. the composite image 197) for detecting and localizing a target.
Regarding claim 29, Blanquart meets the claim limitations set forth in claim 25.
Blanquart does not disclose explicitly the following claim limitations:
The system of claim 28, wherein the controller is further configured to:
receive the location of the tissue structure from the corresponding system;
generate the specialty overlay image frame using the fluorescence exposure frame comprising the location of the tissue structure within the scene; and
combine the specialty overlay image frame with a color image frame depicting the scene to indicate the location of the reagent within the scene.
However in the same field of endeavor Steinback discloses the deficient claim as follows:
wherein the controller is further configured to:
receive the location of the tissue structure (i.e. ‘a fluorescence image for indicating the location of targeted fluorescence molecules (fluorophore)’) [Fig. 5-11; para. 0132] from the corresponding system;
generate the specialty overlay image frame (i.e. ‘overlapping’ or ‘overlay’) using the fluorescence exposure frame (i.e. ‘the reflectance and fluorescence images are displayed overlapping on a single monitor’ or ‘Full color image overlayed with fluorescent image’) [Fig. 5-11; para. 0078 disclose A) Color image only; B) Fluorescent image only C) Combined color and fluorescent image; para. 0171, 0128: ‘the computer … overlays the two images …’; ‘alternating on a single monitor] comprising the location of the tissue structure within the scene [Fig. 5-11; para. 0132: ‘a fluorescence image for indicating the location of targeted fluorescence molecules (fluorophore)’]; and
combine the specialty overlay image frame (i.e. ‘overlapping’ or ‘overlay’) with a color image frame (i.e. ‘the reflectance and fluorescence images are displayed overlapping on a single monitor’ or ‘Full color image overlayed with fluorescent image’) depicting the scene to indicate the location of the reagent within the scene [Fig. 5-11; para. 0078 disclose A) Color image only; B) Fluorescent image only C) Combined color and fluorescent image; para. 0171, 0128: ‘the computer … overlays the two images …’].
Blanquart and Steinback are combinable because they are from the same field of endoscope imaging.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine teachings of Blanquart and Steinback as motivation to have fluorescence images superimposed for “guided surgery” [Steinback: Abstract, para. 0004-0008].
Claims 30-31 and 43 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blanquart in view of Steinback in further view of Margalit et al. (“Margalit”) [US 2016/0360185 A1 provided in IDS filed on 10/22/2024]
Regarding claim 30, Blanquart meets the claim limitations as follows:
The system of claim 25, wherein the specialty exposure frame comprises a mapping exposure frame (i.e. ‘a pulse cycle pattern’: Green, Red, Blue, Green, Red, Blue, IR, (Repeat) or ‘G Frame, R|B Frame) sensed in response to an emission (e.g. Green Light Emission ‘622’, or Red Light Emission ‘626’ or Blue Light Emission’) by the mapping source [Fig. 6, 13-16; para. 0076: ‘a pulse cycle pattern’: Green, Red, Blue, Green, Red, Blue, IR, (Repeat)’], and
wherein the controller is further configured to: provide the mapping exposure frame to a corresponding mapping system that determines the topology of the one or more objects within the scene and one or more of a distance between the two or more objects within the scene, a dimension of an object within the scene, or an angle between the two or more objects within the scene; provide the location of the tissue structure to the corresponding system; and receive the topology of the one or more objects within the scene and one or more of the distance between the two or more objects within the scene, the dimension of the object within the scene, or the angle between the two or more objects within the scene from the corresponding laser mapping system.
Blanquart does not disclose explicitly the following claim limitations:
wherein the controller is further configured to: provide the mapping exposure frame to a corresponding mapping system that determines the topology of the one or more objects within the scene and one or more of a distance between the two or more objects within the scene, a dimension of an object within the scene, or an angle between the two or more objects within the scene; provide the location of the tissue structure to the corresponding system; and receive the topology of the one or more objects within the scene and one or more of the distance between the two or more objects within the scene, the dimension of the object within the scene, or the angle between the two or more objects within the scene from the corresponding laser mapping system.
However in the same field of endeavor Steinback discloses the deficient claim as follows:
wherein the controller is further configured to: provide the mapping exposure frame to a corresponding mapping system (i.e. System Controller or a control unit) [para. 0169-0175] that determines the topology of the one or more objects within the scene (i.e. the morphology of the normal tissue and the location of the surgical instruments’) [Fig. 9-11; para. 0004, 0081-0083, 0204: ‘nerve location’; ‘The surface of the tumor is seen’; ‘Beneath the surface, …’] and one or more of a distance between the two or more objects within the scene, a dimension of an object within the scene, or an angle between the two or more objects within the scene;
provide the location of the tissue structure (i.e. the morphology of the normal tissue and the location of the surgical instruments’) [Fig. 9-11; para. 0004, 0081-0083, 0204: ‘nerve location’; ‘The surface of the tumor is seen’; ‘Beneath the surface, …’] to the corresponding system; and
receive the topology of the one or more objects within the scene (i.e. the morphology of the normal tissue and the location of the surgical instruments’) [Fig. 9-11; para. 0004, 0081-0083, 0204: ‘nerve location’; ‘The surface of the tumor is seen’; ‘Beneath the surface, …’] and one or more of the distance between the two or more objects within the scene, the dimension of the object within the scene, or the angle between the two or more objects within the scene from the corresponding laser mapping system.
Blanquart and Steinback are combinable because they are from the same field of endoscope imaging.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine teachings of Blanquart and Steinback as motivation to have fluorescence images superimposed for “guided surgery” [Steinback: Abstract, para. 0004-0008].
Steinback does not disclose explicitly the following claim limitations (emphasis added):
wherein the controller is further configured to: provide the mapping exposure frame to a corresponding mapping system that determines the topology of the one or more objects within the scene and one or more of a distance between the two or more objects within the scene, a dimension of an object within the scene, or an angle between the two or more objects within the scene; provide the location of the tissue structure to the corresponding system; and receive the topology of the one or more objects within the scene and one or more of the distance between the two or more objects within the scene, the dimension of the object within the scene, or the angle between the two or more objects within the scene from the corresponding laser mapping system.
However in the same field of endeavor Margalit discloses the deficient claim as follows:
wherein the controller is further configured to: provide the mapping exposure frame to a corresponding mapping system (i.e. ‘a laser signal and/or a structured light signal’) [para. 0021: ‘provide information regarding the distance between a particular feature, object, or surface in the scene 102 and the transmitter 140’; ‘provide information about the shape or topology of the scene 102’] that determines the topology of the one or more objects within the scene and one or more of a distance between the two or more objects within the scene [para. 0021: ‘provide information regarding the distance between a particular feature, object, or surface in the scene 102 and the transmitter 140’; ‘provide information about the shape or topology of the scene 102’], a dimension of an object within the scene, or an angle between the two or more objects within the scene;
provide the location of the tissue structure …; and
receive the topology of the one or more objects within the scene and one or more of the distance between the two or more objects within the scene [para. 0021: ‘provide information regarding the distance between a particular feature, object, or surface in the scene 102 and the transmitter 140’; ‘provide information about the shape or topology of the scene 102’], the dimension of the object within the scene, or the angle between the two or more objects within the scene from the corresponding laser mapping system.
Blanquart, Steinback and Margalit are combinable because they are from the same field of structured light imaging.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine teachings of Blanquart Steinback and Margalit as motivation to include a method disclosed in Margalit so as to provide the shape or topology of the scene and/or features within the scene [Margalit: para. 0022; Steinback: para. 0204: ‘It is often not practical to conduct surgery while viewing only the fluorescence of the contrast agent’].
Regarding claim 31, Blanquart in view of Steinback meets the claim limitations set forth in claim 25.
Blanquart does not disclose explicitly the following claim limitations:
The system of claim 30, wherein the mapping information of the mapping exposure frame comprises data for determining real time measurements comprising one or more of: a distance from an endoscope to an object within the scene; an angle between the endoscope and the object within the scene; a distance between a tool and the object within the scene; or an angle between the tool and the object within the scene.
However in the same field of endeavor Steinback discloses the deficient claim as follows:
wherein the controller is further configured to: provide the mapping exposure frame to a corresponding mapping system (i.e. System Controller or a control unit) [para. 0169-0175] that determines the topology of the one or more objects within the scene (i.e. the morphology of the normal tissue and the location of the surgical instruments’) [Fig. 9-11; para. 0004, 0081-0083, 0204: ‘nerve location’; ‘The surface of the tumor is seen’; ‘Beneath the surface, …’] and one or more of a distance between the two or more objects within the scene, a dimension of an object within the scene, or an angle between the two or more objects within the scene;
provide the location of the tissue structure (i.e. the morphology of the normal tissue and the location of the surgical instruments’) [Fig. 9-11; para. 0004, 0081-0083, 0204: ‘nerve location’; ‘The surface of the tumor is seen’; ‘Beneath the surface, …’] to the corresponding system; and
receive the topology of the one or more objects within the scene (i.e. the morphology of the normal tissue and the location of the surgical instruments’) [Fig. 9-11; para. 0004, 0081-0083, 0204: ‘nerve location’; ‘The surface of the tumor is seen’; ‘Beneath the surface, …’] and one or more of the distance between the two or more objects within the scene, the dimension of the object within the scene, or the angle between the two or more objects within the scene from the corresponding laser mapping system.
Blanquart and Steinback are combinable because they are from the same field of endoscope imaging.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine teachings of Blanquart and Steinback as motivation to have fluorescence images superimposed for “guided surgery” [Steinback: Abstract, para. 0004-0008].
Steinback does not disclose explicitly the following claim limitations (emphasis added):
wherein the controller is further configured to: provide the mapping exposure frame to a corresponding mapping system that determines the topology of the one or more objects within the scene and one or more of a distance between the two or more objects within the scene, a dimension of an object within the scene, or an angle between the two or more objects within the scene; provide the location of the tissue structure to the corresponding system; and receive the topology of the one or more objects within the scene and one or more of the distance between the two or more objects within the scene, the dimension of the object within the scene, or the angle between the two or more objects within the scene from the corresponding laser mapping system.
However in the same field of endeavor Margalit discloses the deficient claim as follows:
wherein the controller is further configured to: provide the mapping exposure frame to a corresponding mapping system (i.e. ‘a laser signal and/or a structured light signal’) [para. 0021: ‘provide information regarding the distance between a particular feature, object, or surface in the scene 102 and the transmitter 140’; ‘provide information about the shape or topology of the scene 102’] that determines the topology of the one or more objects within the scene and one or more of a distance between the two or more objects within the scene [para. 0021: ‘provide information regarding the distance between a particular feature, object, or surface in the scene 102 and the transmitter 140’; ‘provide information about the shape or topology of the scene 102’], a dimension of an object within the scene, or an angle between the two or more objects within the scene;
provide the location of the tissue structure …; and
receive the topology of the one or more objects within the scene and one or more of the distance between the two or more objects within the scene [para. 0021: ‘provide information regarding the distance between a particular feature, object, or surface in the scene 102 and the transmitter 140’; ‘provide information about the shape or topology of the scene 102’], the dimension of the object within the scene, or the angle between the two or more objects within the scene from the corresponding laser mapping system.
Blanquart, Steinback and Margalit are combinable because they are from the same field of structured light imaging.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine teachings of Blanquart Steinback and Margalit as motivation to include a method disclosed in Margalit so as to provide the shape or topology of the scene and/or features within the scene [Margalit: para. 0022; Steinback: para. 0204: ‘It is often not practical to conduct surgery while viewing only the fluorescence of the contrast agent’].
Regarding claim 43, Blanquart in view of Steinback meets the claim limitations set forth in claim 25.
Steinback does not disclose explicitly the following claim limitations (emphasis added):
The system of claim 25, wherein the mapping information generated by the mapping source comprises a plurality of height values, and wherein the system determines a surface mapping of a three-dimensional environment based in part on the plurality of height values.
However in the same field of endeavor Margalit discloses the deficient claim as follows:
wherein the mapping information generated by the mapping source comprises a plurality of height values (i.e. ‘depth information’) [para. 0020-0021: ‘depth information indicate of the structure or shape of… and/or surfaces in the scene 102’], and wherein the system determines a surface mapping of a three-dimensional environment [para. 0020-0021: ‘provide information regarding the distance between a particular feature, object, or surface in the scene 102 and the transmitter 140’; ‘provide information about the shape or topology of the scene 102’] based in part on the plurality of height values (i.e. ‘depth information’).
Blanquart, Steinback and Margalit are combinable because they are from the same field of structured light imaging.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine teachings of Blanquart Steinback and Margalit as motivation to include a method disclosed in Margalit so as to provide the shape or topology of the scene and/or features within the scene [Margalit: para. 0022; Steinback: para. 0204: ‘It is often not practical to conduct surgery while viewing only the fluorescence of the contrast agent’].
Claim 33 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blanquart in view of Steinback in further view of Woodburn et al. (“Woodburn”) [US 2002/0115649 A1]
Regarding claim 33, Blanquart meets the claim limitations set forth in claim 25.
Blanquart does not disclose explicitly the following claim limitations:
The system of claim 25, wherein the spectral source of electromagnetic radiation is a plurality of spectral sources of electromagnetic radiation, and wherein the plurality of spectral sources comprises: a first spectral source configured to emit visible electromagnetic radiation within a 40 nm waveband, and a second spectral source configured to emit narrowband electromagnetic radiation within a 100 nm waveband.
However in the same field of endeavor Steinback discloses the deficient claim as follows:
wherein the spectral source of electromagnetic radiation is a plurality of spectral sources of electromagnetic radiation, and wherein the plurality of spectral sources comprises [Fig. 2 shows White LED and two excitation sources 460 and 630 (nm); para. 0076-0077]: a first spectral source configured to emit visible electromagnetic radiation within a 40 nm waveband [para. 0005, 0205: ‘excitation at 380-420nm’], and a second spectral source configured to emit narrowband electromagnetic radiation within a 100 nm waveband [para. 0006, 0206: ‘white visible light (400-650 nm)’].
Blanquart and Steinback are combinable because they are from the same field of endoscope imaging.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine teachings of Blanquart and Steinback as motivation to have fluorescence images superimposed for “guided surgery” [Steinback: Abstract, para. 0004-0008].
Steinback does not disclose explicitly the following claim limitations (emphasis added):
a second spectral source configured to emit narrowband electromagnetic radiation within a 100 nm waveband.
However in the same field of endeavor Wooburn discloses the deficient claim as follows:
a second spectral source configured to emit narrowband electromagnetic radiation within a 100 nm waveband [para. 0065: ‘a xenon lamp; … preferable about 400-500nm or 700-800nm’].
Blanquart, Steinback and Woodburn are combinable because they are from the same field of fluorescence application.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine teachings of Blanquart, Steinback and Woodburn as motivation to include a xenon lamp of preferable 100 nm waveband as the co-therapeutic agent in photodynamic therapy treating macrophage-mediated disease with a texaphyrin [Woodburn: Abstract, para. 0065].
Claim 34 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blanquart in view of Steinback in further view of Zeng (“Zeng”) [US 2004/0245350 A1]
Regarding claim 34, Blanquart meets the claim limitations as follows:
The system of claim 25, wherein the fluorescence excitation source is configured to emit near-infrared electromagnetic radiation within a 35 nm waveband, and wherein the controller is configured to modulate a magnitude [Fig. 7B; para. 0087, 0147: ‘the different light intensities … modulating the light power …’] or a duration [Fig. 7A; para. 0087, 0147: ‘the different light intensities … modulating the light pulse width or duration’], or both the magnitude and the duration [Fig. 7C; para. 0087, 0147], of a pulse of electromagnetic radiation from a first exposure frame capture to a subsequent exposure frame capture.
Blanquart does not disclose explicitly the following claim limitations:
wherein the fluorescence excitation source is configured to emit near-infrared electromagnetic radiation within a 35 nm waveband.
However in the same field of endeavor Zeng discloses the deficient claim as follows:
wherein the fluorescence excitation source is configured to emit near-infrared electromagnetic radiation within a 35 nm waveband [para. 0055: ‘A second excitation wavelength band …, in the near-IR spectral range, … from 610 nm to 640 nm’].
Blanquart, Steinback and Zeng are combinable because they are from the same field of fluorescence application.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine teachings of Blanquart, Steinback and Zeng as motivation to include a fluorescence excitation source in NEAR_IR for higher intensity at the lesion ‘for the detection of early cancer’ [Zeng: Fig. 4: Lesion 409 compared to Lesion 407; para. 0006].
Claim 40 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blanquart in view of Steinback in further view of Barnes et al. (“Barnes”) [US 2004/0068193 A1]
Regarding claim 40, Blanquart meets the claim limitations set forth in claim 25.
Blanquart does not disclose explicitly the following claim limitations:
The system of claim 25, wherein the one or more specialty exposure frames comprise specialty image data, and wherein the specialty image data of the one or more specialty exposure frames is compared to a spectral threshold to determine a classification of a tissue.
However in the same field of endeavor Barnes discloses the deficient claim as follows:
wherein the one or more specialty exposure frames comprise specialty image data [para. 0008: step (a)], and wherein the specialty image data of the one or more specialty exposure frames is compared to a spectral threshold [para. 0008: step (b): ‘a spectral library of tissue data classified by normal and diseased tissue’] to determine a classification of a tissue [para. 0008: step (c): ‘performing classification … by comparing …’].
Blanquart, Steinback and Barnes are combinable because they are from the same field of fluorescence application.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine teachings of Blanquart, Steinback and Barnes as motivation to include simultaneous measurement of fluorescence, Raman spectra, and diffuse reflectance (transflectance) of a target tissue for rapid diagnostic measurements having high reliability [Barnes: para. 0003].
Claim 42 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blanquart in view of Steinback in further view of Scott et al. (“Scott”) [US 2009/0270678 A1]
Regarding claim 42, Blanquart meets the claim limitations as follows:
The system of claim 25, wherein the emitter is configured to emit a sequence of pulses of electromagnetic radiation repeatedly [para. 0076: ‘a pulse cycle pattern’: Green, Red, Blue, Green, Red, Blue, IR, (Repeat)], such that the plurality of exposure frames that correspond in time with the plurality of pulses of electromagnetic radiation is used to generate a video stream comprising a plurality of image frames [Fig. 6, 15, 16], wherein a capture rate of the plurality of image frames is a multiple of a display rate of the plurality of image frames.
Blanquart does not disclose explicitly the following claim limitations:
wherein a capture rate of the plurality of image frames is a multiple of a display rate of the plurality of image frames.
However in the same field of endeavor Scott discloses the deficient claim as follows:
wherein a capture rate of the plurality of image frames is a multiple of a display rate of the plurality of image frames [para. 0350:’the capture frame rate is four times the normal video display rate and so the video display has the normal number of frames per second’].
Blanquart, Steinback and Scott are combinable because they are from the same field of fluorescence application.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine teachings of Blanquart, Steinback and Scott as motivation to include adjust capture frame rate to be higher than display rate so as to have the normal number of frames per second [Scott: para. 0350].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See form 892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER D LE whose telephone number is (571)270-5382. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Alternate Friday: 10AM-6:30PM.
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, SATH PERUNGAVOOR can be reached on 571-272-7455. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/PETER D LE/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2488