Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. It would be of great assistance to the office if all incoming papers pertaining to a filed application carried the following items:
i. Application number (checked for accuracy, including series code and serial no.).
ii. Group art unit number (copied from most recent Office communication).
iii. Filing date.
iv. Name of the examiner who prepared the most recent Office action.
v. Title of invention.
vi. Confirmation number (See MPEP § 503).
3. The Examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record within the body of this action for the convenience of the Applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages, paragraph and figures may apply. Applicant, in preparing the response, should consider fully the entire reference as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
4. Claim interpretation: When multiple limitations are connected with “OR”, one of the limitations doesn’t have any patentable weight since both of the limitations are optional.
CLAIM OBJECTION
5. Claims 18 & 30 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Interpreting the claims in light of the specification, examiner finds the claimed invention is patentably distinct from the prior art of record. The prior art does not expressly teach or render obvious the invention as recited in the claim 18. Claims 19-21 are also objected since they depends upon claim 18 and Claims 31-32 are also objected since they depends upon claim 30.
.
Double Patenting
5. The non-statutory 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 non-statutory 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 non- provisional rejection based on a non-statutory 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).
a. Claims 1-17 & 22-29 & 33-40 of instant application are provisionally rejected on the ground non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-26 of application No. 17/423 597 (US Pat.: 12299908). Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentable distinct from each other because both the claims of the instant application and the claims of the co-pending application are almost the same in scope. Omission of an element and its function in a combination is an obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform the same function as before. In re KARLSON (CCPA) 136 USPQ 184 (1963).
An omission of an element and its function in a combination is an obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform the same function as before. In re KARLSON(CCPA) 136 USPQ 184 (1963).
Claims are not identical, however, the scope of the invention are the same.
Instant Application
Application (17/423 597)
Claim 1:
A method of generating a three-dimensional image of a target using two-dimensional images, comprising: generating a three-dimensional map of a target area associated with one or more fiducial markers; capturing a two-dimensional white light image of the target area and the one or more fiducial markers; creating a three-dimensional white light image from the two-dimensional white light image and the three-dimensional map; capturing a two-dimensional fluorescence image of the target area and the one or more fiducial markers; creating a three-dimensional fluorescence image from the two-dimensional fluorescence image and the three-dimensional map; and aligning the three-dimensional white light image and the three-dimensional fluorescence image using the one or more fiducial markers to form a three-dimensional superimposed image.
Claim 1:
A method of generating a three-dimensional image of a target using two-dimensional images obtained within an enclosed environment, comprising: while a target is positioned within the enclosed environment: generating a three-dimensional map of a target area associated with one or more fiducial markers; capturing a two-dimensional white light image of the target area and the one or more fiducial markers; capturing a two-dimensional fluorescence image of the target area and the one or more fiducial markers; creating a three-dimensional white light image from the two-dimensional white light image and the three-dimensional map; creating a three-dimensional fluorescence image from the two-dimensional fluorescence image and the three-dimensional map; and aligning the three-dimensional white light image and the three-dimensional fluorescence image using the one or more fiducial markers to form a three-dimensional superimposed image.
All other independent, dependents and conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentable distinct from each other because both the claims of the instant application and the claims of the parent application are almost the same in scope.
b. Claims 1 & 37 of instant application are provisionally rejected on the ground non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 of application No. 17/423 449 (US Pat.: 12141964). Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentable distinct from each other because both the claims of the instant application and the claims of the copending application are almost the same in scope. Omission of an element and its function in a combination is an obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform the same function as before. In re KARLSON (CCPA) 136 USPQ 184 (1963).
An omission of an element and its function in a combination is an obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform the same function as before. In re KARLSON(CCPA) 136 USPQ 184 (1963).
Claims are not identical, however, the scope of the invention are the same.
Instant Application
Application (12141964)
Claim 1:
A method of generating a three-dimensional image of a target using two-dimensional images, comprising: generating a three-dimensional map of a target area associated with one or more fiducial markers; capturing a two-dimensional white light image of the target area and the one or more fiducial markers; creating a three-dimensional white light image from the two-dimensional white light image and the three-dimensional map; capturing a two-dimensional fluorescence image of the target area and the one or more fiducial markers; creating a three-dimensional fluorescence image from the two-dimensional fluorescence image and the three-dimensional map; and aligning the three-dimensional white light image and the three-dimensional fluorescence image using the one or more fiducial markers to form a three-dimensional superimposed image.
Claim 1:
A method of generating a three-dimensional image of a target using two-dimensional images, comprising: generating a three-dimensional map of a target area associated with one or more fiducial markers; capturing a two-dimensional white light image of the target area and the one or more fiducial markers; creating a three-dimensional white light image from the two-dimensional white light image and the three-dimensional map; capturing a two-dimensional fluorescence image of the target area and the one or more fiducial markers; creating a three-dimensional fluorescence image from the two-dimensional fluorescence image and the three-dimensional map; and aligning the three-dimensional white light image and the three-dimensional fluorescence image using the one or more fiducial markers to form a three-dimensional superimposed image.
Prior Art
7. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. Kishima et al (US 2012/0016230) discloses an imaging apparatus includes: a first illumination unit to apply visible light to a subject having a fluorescent substance; a second illumination unit to apply excitation light to the subject so that fluorescence is generated from the fluorescent substance; an optical filter unit to cause the visible light and the fluorescence to pass therethrough, and shield the excitation light; an imaging unit including imaging elements to generate image signals, and an output unit to read the image signals from the imaging elements and output image information; an optical element to divide the visible light into component light beams, cause the divided light beams to be incident on the imaging elements, and cause the fluorescence to be incident on at least one imaging element; and a control device for alternately applying the visible light and the excitation light and alternately outputting image information of the visible light and the fluorescence.
Another Prior art Champion et al (2018/0114353) discloses the data imagery include a light map, a sparse light field, and a depth map of the physical location. Aa three-dimensional (3D) display system received from a camera and a data imagery map of the physical location may be determined based at least in part on the received images. The data imagery map may capture real world conditions associated with the physical location of the user. Instructions to render a 3D graphics object and a virtual 3D scene comprising the 3D graphics object.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MD K TALUKDER whose telephone number is (571)270-3222. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thur from 10 am to 6 pm.
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, Wesley Kim can be reached on 571-272-7867. 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.
/MD K TALUKDER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2648
Prosecution Insights