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 .
Notice to Applicants
This action is in response to the Application filed on 11/22/2024.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Priority
This Application claims priority to PCT/JP2023/018160 with filing date 05/15/2023, as well as JP-2022-093907 with filing date 06/09/2022, both of which are acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) filed on 02/27/2025 has been fully considered by the examiner.
Title
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: “INFORMATION PROCESSING APPARATUS, ENDOSCOPE APPARATUS, INFORMATION PROCESSING METHOD, AND PROGRAM FOR SELECTING REFERENCE ENDOSCOPIC IMAGES FOR DISPLAY” (emphasis added to suggested changes).
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“Display apparatus”, present in claims 1-20, described in at least figure 1, display apparatus 30, tablet terminal 32, and paragraphs 0050, 0054, 0067, 0079;
“Accepting apparatus”, present in claims 1-20, described in at least figure 2, accepting apparatus 76, and paragraphs 0062, 0067, 0082.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Nonstatutory Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 10-12, and 17-20 are rejected on the grounds of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 8 of U.S. Patent No. US-10092216-B2 (the ‘216 Patent).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the reference claim 8 is narrower than and fully anticipates each of the present claims 1, 10-12, and 17-20.
Regarding claim 1, the following claim comparison table lists the present claim 1, reference claim 8 of the ‘216 patent, along with row numbers for clarity.
Row #
Present Claim 1
Reference Claim 8
A
An information processing apparatus comprising: a processor, the processor configured to:
A body part identification device used for an endoscope,
B
acquire a plurality of first endoscopic examination images from storage archiving the plurality of first endoscopic examination images, the plurality of first endoscopic examination images having been obtained by imaging a plurality of sites in a first endoscopic examination which is a previous or earlier endoscopic examination;
the endoscope inserting an insertion section into a body cavity of a patient and capturing an image of the body cavity, a distal portion of the insertion section incorporating an imaging unit, the body part identification device being configured to identify an imaged body part in a current image currently being captured by the imaging unit,
C
and cause a display apparatus to display at least one first endoscopic examination image satisfying a specific condition from among the plurality of first endoscopic examination images as a reference image in a period of carrying out a second endoscopic examination which is a current endoscopic examination,
the body part identification device comprising: a processor configured to perform functions of: detecting an insertion amount of the insertion section inserted into the body cavity;
D
wherein: the specific condition is a first condition, a second condition, or a third condition,
acquiring the current image;
E
the first condition is a condition stipulating that a selection has been made according to an instruction accepted by an accepting apparatus with the plurality of first endoscopic examination images being displayed on a screen,
acquiring at least one past image from a past image storage unit based on the insertion amount detected by the insertion amount detecting function, the past image storage unit storing the past images captured in at least one past endoscopic examination;
F
the second condition is a condition stipulating that a selection has been made by performing image recognition processing on the plurality of first endoscopic examination images and/or information processing on metadata of the plurality of first endoscopic examination images,
and identifying the imaged body part in the current image through comparing the past image acquired by the past image acquiring function with the current image and determining the past image similar to the current image,
G
and the third condition is a condition stipulating that a selection has been made by performing image recognition processing on the plurality of first endoscopic examination images and/or information processing on metadata of the plurality of first endoscopic examination images, and that a selection has been made according to an instruction accepted by an accepting apparatus.
wherein the processor is configured to further perform the functions of: detecting a bend amount of the insertion section; and detecting a rotation amount of the insertion section about an axis of the insertion section, and wherein the past image acquiring function acquires the past image based on the insertion amount, the bend amount, and the rotation amount;
H
wherein the processor is configured to further perform the functions of: generating an endoscopic examination support screen, the endoscopic examination support screen displaying the current image and the imaged body part in the current image, the imaged body part being identified by the body part identifying function; and controlling a display of the endoscopic examination support screen;
I
wherein the endoscopic examination support screen displays the current image and the past image in a comparable manner, the past image containing the same imaged body part as in the current image, the imaged body part in the current image being identified by the body part identifying function.
The present row A is anticipated by the reference row C, as both require a processor.
The present row B is anticipated by the reference row E, as the ‘216 Patent recites a narrower method of obtaining a plurality of past endoscopic examination images from a storage.
The present row C is anticipated by the reference rows H-I, as both require displaying a chosen reference image based on a condition, and the ‘216 Patent also requires this to be during a current examination by requiring obtaining and displaying the current image as well.
Finally, the present rows D-G are anticipated by the reference row F, which discloses the second condition by comparing the features of the images; the present claim 1 broadens by reciting the additional alternative options for the conditions (i.e., the first and third conditions).
Regarding claims 10-12 and 17, these claims recite notification processing, image recognition, and appearance/composition changing steps that are anticipated by reference rows F and H-I comparing the image features and displaying different reference images over time.
Regarding claim 17, this claim recites wherein the processor is configured to change the composition of the reference image according to a second endoscopic examination image obtained by imaging in the second endoscopic examination (reference rows F and H-I disclose this by comparing the current and reference images, and updating the support screen to depict the new reference image).
Regarding claim 18, this claim recites wherein the processor is configured to cause the display apparatus to display the reference image and a second endoscopic examination image obtained by imaging in the second endoscopic examination in a manner allowing for comparison (which is disclosed by reference rows H-I displaying both the current and reference images on the support screen).
Regarding claim 19, this claim recites an endoscope apparatus comprising: the information processing apparatus according to claim 1 (which is anticipated by the reference claim 8 above), and an endoscope that images the plurality of sites in the endoscopic examinations (which is anticipated by the reference row B above).
Regarding claim 20, this independent claim recites identical steps to those of claim 1, but merely as a method claim instead of an apparatus claim, and is thus still anticipated by the reference claim 1.
35 U.S.C. § 101 Analysis
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
The examiner determines that all of claims 1-20 are eligible under 101. The 101 analysis is provided below for the purposes of a clear record.
Analysis for claim 1 is provided in the following. Claim 1 is reproduced in the following (annotation added):
An information processing apparatus comprising: a processor, the processor configured to:
acquire a plurality of first endoscopic examination images from storage archiving the plurality of first endoscopic examination images,
the plurality of first endoscopic examination images having been obtained by imaging a plurality of sites in a first endoscopic examination which is a previous or earlier endoscopic examination;
and cause a display apparatus to display at least one first endoscopic examination image satisfying a specific condition from among the plurality of first endoscopic examination images as a reference image in a period of carrying out a second endoscopic examination which is a current endoscopic examination,
wherein: the specific condition is a first condition, a second condition, or a third condition,
the first condition is a condition stipulating that a selection has been made according to an instruction accepted by an accepting apparatus with the plurality of first endoscopic examination images being displayed on a screen,
the second condition is a condition stipulating that a selection has been made by performing image recognition processing on the plurality of first endoscopic examination images and/or information processing on metadata of the plurality of first endoscopic examination images,
and the third condition is a condition stipulating that a selection has been made by performing image recognition processing on the plurality of first endoscopic examination images and/or information processing on metadata of the plurality of first endoscopic examination images, and that a selection has been made according to an instruction accepted by an accepting apparatus.
Step 1: Does the claim belong to one of the statutory categories? Claim 1 is directed to a machine, which is a statutory category of invention (YES).
Step 2A Prong One: Does the claim recite a judicial exception? Parts g and h recite steps including mental processes that can be practically performed in the human mind. Part g recites performing image recognition processes on the images and/or information processing on metadata of said images, each of which can be accomplished by a mental analysis of the images or metadata. Part h requires the same actions, in addition to the accepting apparatus accepting instructions (YES).
Step 2A Prong Two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? Part a recites a computerized system at a high level of generality. Parts b-c, however, recite that the plurality of endoscopic examination images were obtained from a previous endoscopic examination, part d recites displaying at least one of said images for use as a reference image during a current examination, and part e connects the conditions for selecting said reference image to parts f-h. Thus, the image recognition and information processing steps of parts g-h are integrated into the practical application of displaying the relevant reference images during a second endoscopic examination (YES). Claim 1 is eligible.
Similar analysis is applicable to independent claim 19, which additionally recites a particular machine in an endoscope that images the sites in each endoscopic examination. Claim 19 is eligible.
Similar analysis is applicable to independent claim 20, which recites the steps of claim 1 as a method claim. Claim 20 is eligible.
Claims 2-15 and 17-18 recite additional elements with no new judicial exceptions. Claims 2-15 and 17-18 are eligible.
Claim 16 recites deriving assistance information as a result of comparing characteristic portions of the reference and current examination images, which can be performed mentally. However, claims 14 and 15, on which claim 16 depends, require outputting said assistance information as instructions to make the imaging conditions consistent across the images, which integrates this into a practical application. Claim 16 is eligible.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 102
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 1-3, 8, 10-12, and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Mirua (U.S. Publ. US-2016/0292498-A1).
Regarding claim 1, Mirua discloses an information processing apparatus comprising: a processor (see figure 1, endoscope system 10, processor device 22, and paragraphs 0039-0040, 0119-0120), the processor configured to:
acquire a plurality of first endoscopic examination images from storage archiving the plurality of first endoscopic examination images (see figure 6, past image server 14, past image storage unit 52, past images 50, past image acquisition unit 92, insertion amount detector 91 and paragraphs 0071-0073, where past endoscopic images are retrieved that were taken at similar endoscopic depth/insertion levels to the current endoscope position),
the plurality of first endoscopic examination images having been obtained by imaging a plurality of sites in a first endoscopic examination which is a previous or earlier endoscopic examination (figure 4 and paragraph 0059 specify that the images stored in and retrieved from the past image storage unit can be from previous endoscopic exams of the same or different patients);
and cause a display apparatus (see figure 6, display 72) to display at least one first endoscopic examination image satisfying a specific condition from among the plurality of first endoscopic examination images as a reference image in a period of carrying out a second endoscopic examination which is a current endoscopic examination (see figure 6, current image acquisition unit 90, past image acquisition unit 92, body part identifier 98, screen controller 100, and paragraphs 0075-0079, where the body part identifier obtains the current image and compares its visual features to the past images to choose the most similar past images; the current image and chosen past images are sent to the screen controller, which displays both on a screen, as shown in figure 7, current image display area 102a, past image display area 102c, and paragraphs 0080-0083),
wherein: the specific condition is a first condition, a second condition, or a third condition, the first condition is a condition stipulating that a selection has been made according to an instruction accepted by an accepting apparatus with the plurality of first endoscopic examination images being displayed on a screen, the second condition is a condition stipulating that a selection has been made by performing image recognition processing on the plurality of first endoscopic examination images and/or information processing on metadata of the plurality of first endoscopic examination images, and the third condition is a condition stipulating that a selection has been made by performing image recognition processing on the plurality of first endoscopic examination images and/or information processing on metadata of the plurality of first endoscopic examination images, and that a selection has been made according to an instruction accepted by an accepting apparatus (the above citations to figure 6 disclose the second condition option, as the past image acquisition unit 92 processes the insertion amount/metadata of the past images to choose the initial group of past images in paragraphs 0071-0073, then the body part identifier 98 performs image recognition processing on the current and past images by comparing their visual features to select the final past images for display in paragraphs 0075-0079).
Regarding claim 2, Mirua discloses wherein the processor is configured to cause the display apparatus to display the reference image in a timeout phase performed during the period of carrying out the second endoscopic examination (see figure 7, past image display area 102c and paragraphs 0080-0083, where the reference image can be displayed at any time during the exam, which would include any timeout phases; paragraphs 0090-0093 specify that this display can be updated at regular intervals, and optionally as a still/static image, thus the display would still function during any timeout phases).
Regarding claim 3, Mirua discloses wherein the processor is configured to cause the display apparatus to display first information obtained during a period of carrying out the first endoscopic examination, in a timeout phase performed during the period of carrying out the second endoscopic examination (figure 7, past image display area 102c and paragraphs 0080-0083 specify that the past image metadata can be displayed as well).
Regarding claim 8, Mirua discloses wherein the metadata includes endoscopic examination information obtained during the period of carrying out the first endoscopic examination (see figure 5 and paragraphs 0060-0063, where the metadata can include endoscope insertion amounts and recognized body parts from the past exam).
Regarding claim 10, Mirua discloses wherein the processor is configured to perform first notification processing to provide a notification in a case in which a location corresponding to a characteristic portion in the reference image is shown in a second endoscopic examination image obtained by imaging in the second endoscopic examination (see paragraphs 0075-0079, where the body part identifier obtains the current image and compares its visual features to the past images to choose the most similar past images, such as by matching characteristic portions/features; see figure 7, current image display area 102a, past image display area 102c and paragraphs 0080-0083, where the chosen past images can be displayed/notified to the user during the second exam).
Regarding claim 11, Mirua discloses wherein the first notification processing includes processing to change a display appearance of the reference image (see figure 7, past image display area 102c and paragraphs 0080-0083, where the appearance of the reference image in the past image display area can change over time as new most similar past images are selected and displayed).
Regarding claim 12, Mirua discloses wherein the processor is configured to change a display appearance of the reference image according to a positional relationship between a characteristic portion in the reference image and a location which corresponds to the characteristic portion and which is shown in a second endoscopic examination image obtained by imaging in the second endoscopic examination (see figure 7, past image display area 102c and paragraphs 0080-0083, where the appearance of the reference image in the past image display area can change over time as new most similar past images are selected and displayed; paragraphs 0075-0079 specify details of the comparisons between the features of the current and past images, which can include matching particular characteristic portions, such as blood vessels or ductal structures).
Regarding claim 14, Mirua discloses wherein the processor is configured to perform assistance processing to assist with making imaging conditions of the second endoscopic examination consistent with imaging conditions of the first endoscopic examination on the basis of the reference image and a second endoscopic examination image obtained by imaging in the second endoscopic examination (see figure 7 and paragraphs 0080-0083, where, as the closest/most similar past image to the current image is always displayed, regardless of that image's individual similarity level, along with the body part display area 102b showing the schema/map 106 of the body, the support screen of figure 7 serves to guide the user to image similar areas from the past exam).
Regarding claim 15, Mirua discloses wherein the assistance processing includes output processing to output assistance information required to make the imaging conditions of the second endoscopic examination consistent with the imaging conditions of the first endoscopic examination (see figure 7 and paragraphs 0080-0083, where the body part display area 102b and past image display area 102c read as assistance information).
Regarding claim 16, Mirua discloses wherein the assistance information is derived on the basis of a result of comparing a first characteristic portion shown in the reference image with a second characteristic portion shown in the second endoscopic examination image (see paragraphs 0075-0079, where the body part identifier obtains the current image and compares its visual features to the past images to choose the most similar past images, such as by matching characteristic portions/features).
Regarding claim 17, Mirua discloses wherein the processor is configured to change the composition of the reference image according to a second endoscopic examination image obtained by imaging in the second endoscopic examination (see figure 7, past image display area 102c and paragraphs 0080-0083, where the appearance/composition of the reference image in the past image display area can change over time as new most similar past images are selected and displayed).
Regarding claim 18, Mirua discloses wherein the processor is configured to cause the display apparatus to display the reference image and a second endoscopic examination image obtained by imaging in the second endoscopic examination in a manner allowing for comparison (see figure 7, current image display area 102a, past image display area 102c and paragraphs 0080-0083, where the chosen past images can be displayed side-by-side).
Regarding claim 19, Mirua discloses an endoscope apparatus (see figure 1, endoscope system 10) comprising:
the information processing apparatus according to claim 1 (see all citations to claim 1 above);
and an endoscope that images the plurality of sites in the endoscopic examinations (see figure 1, endoscope 18).
Regarding claim 20, Mirua discloses an information processing method comprising (see figure 6).
The remainder of claim 20 recites steps identical to those of claim 1. Therefore, Mirua anticipates claim 20 as applied to claim 1 above.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 103
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 4-7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mirua (U.S. Publ. US-2016/0292498-A1) in view of Hallen (U.S. Publ. US-2022/0020118-A1).
Regarding claim 4, Mirua fails to disclose the limitations of claim 4.
Pertaining to the same field of endeavor, Hallen discloses wherein the processor is configured to: acquire second information from an apparatus storing the second information, the second information being required in a timeout performed during the period of carrying out the second endoscopic examination (see figure 14 and paragraphs 0119-0124, where an identity marker 1420 can be affixed to a patient and image-processed to obtain required patient information, such as identity, medications, surgical location, etc.; figure 15 and paragraph 0134 specify that this takes place during a digital timeout; paragraph 0047 specifies that this can be during endoscopic procedures);
and cause the display apparatus to display the acquired second information (see paragraph 0127).
Mirua and Hallen are considered analogous art, as they are both directed to image analysis of endoscope images for surgical assistance. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have integrated the teachings of Hallen into Mirua by acquiring and displaying timeout-required information during the second exam because doing so ensures that the medical staff are performing the correct procedure on the correct patient (see Hallen paragraphs 0128-0130).
Regarding claim 5, Mirua fails to disclose the limitations of claim 5.
Pertaining to the same field of endeavor, Hallen discloses wherein the processor is configured to store the second information in the storage in a case in which the timeout performed during the period of carrying out the second endoscopic examination is completed (see paragraph 0133, where the patient information can be stored in association with the images for record-keeping).
Mirua and Hallen are considered analogous art, as they are both directed to image analysis of endoscope images for surgical assistance. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have integrated the teachings of Hallen into Mirua by storing the information after a timeout because saving the patient information allows for better selection of training images for further training (see Hallen paragraph 0113).
Regarding claim 6, Mirua fails to disclose the limitations of claim 6.
Pertaining to the same field of endeavor, Hallen discloses wherein information obtained in a timeout of the first endoscopic examination is associated with the first endoscopic examination images (see paragraph 0133, where the patient information obtained during the timeout can be stored in association with the images for record-keeping).
Mirua and Hallen are considered analogous art, as they are both directed to image analysis of endoscope images for surgical assistance. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have integrated the teachings of Hallen into Mirua by associating the images with the timeout information because saving the patient information allows for better selection of training images for further training (see Hallen paragraph 0113).
Regarding claim 7, Mirua fails to disclose the limitations of claim 7.
Pertaining to the same field of endeavor, Hallen discloses wherein information obtained in a timeout of the second endoscopic examination is associated with a second endoscopic examination image obtained by imaging in the second endoscopic examination (see paragraph 0133, where the patient information obtained during the timeout can be stored in association with the images for record-keeping).
Mirua and Hallen are considered analogous art, as they are both directed to image analysis of endoscope images for surgical assistance. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have integrated the teachings of Hallen into Mirua by associating the images with the timeout information because saving the patient information allows for better selection of training images for further training (see Hallen paragraph 0113).
Regarding claim 9, Mirua fails to disclose the limitations of claim 9.
Pertaining to the same field of endeavor, Hallen discloses wherein the endoscopic examination information includes information obtained in a timeout of the first endoscopic examination (see figure 14 and paragraphs 0119-0124, where an identity marker 1420 can be affixed to a patient and image-processed to obtain required patient information, such as identity, medications, surgical location, etc.; then see paragraph 0133, where the patient information obtained during the timeout can be stored as metadata in association with the images for record-keeping).
Mirua and Hallen are considered analogous art, as they are both directed to image analysis of endoscope images for surgical assistance. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have integrated the teachings of Hallen into Mirua by associating the metadata/patient information with the images because doing so ensures that the medical staff are performing the correct procedure on the correct patient (see Hallen paragraphs 0128-0130).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mirua (U.S. Publ. US-2016/0292498-A1) in view of Iwase et al. (U.S. Publ. US-2016/0183785-A1).
Regarding claim 13, Mirua fails to disclose the limitations of claim 13.
Pertaining to the same field of endeavor, Iwase discloses wherein the processor is configured to perform second notification processing to provide a notification in a case in which the positional relationship is a predetermined positional relationship (first see figure 3, step S303, figure 4, thumbnails 431, 432 and paragraph 0066, where previous/reference images from a previous exam are first displayed; then see figure 3, step S306, figure 4, indicator 416 and paragraph 0076, where the degree of matching/overlap between the reference and current images is measured and notified by the indicator 416; the predetermined positional relationship is thus the features/characteristic portions having the same position; paragraph 0018 specifies that the images can be endoscope images).
Mirua and Iwase are considered analogous art, as they are both directed to matching endoscopic images to reference images. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have integrated the teachings of Iwase into Mirua by notifying the user of the degree of overlap because doing so allows for identifying the same anatomical region in follow-up exams (see Iwase paragraph 0084).
Prior Art Cited but not Applied
Matsuura et al. (U.S. Publ. US-2022/0265384-A1) discloses option 1 (the “first condition”) of claim 1, but it is not currently necessary to reject with Matsuura under 35 U.S.C. 103, as the claim recites these conditions as a Markush grouping (“wherein: the specific condition is a first condition, a second condition, or a third condition”), and Mirua already discloses the second condition.
Matsuura discloses the first condition is a condition stipulating that a selection has been made according to an instruction accepted by an accepting apparatus with the plurality of first endoscopic examination images being displayed on a screen (see figure 19, operative field region A2, reference images A41, A42 and paragraphs 0189-0194, where the user can manually choose specific reference images to be displayed; paragraph 0062 specifies that the images can be endoscope images).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS JOHN HELCO whose telephone number is (703)756-5539. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Matthew Bella, can be reached at telephone number 571-272-7778. 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 Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/NICHOLAS JOHN HELCO/Examiner, Art Unit 2667 /MATTHEW C BELLA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2667
Prosecution Insights