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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy of priority document JP 2019-060221 has been received.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
The present Abstract appears to be an Abstract of Parent US Patent 12,193,642, which describes a substantially different invention. That is, the present invention adjusts an imaging device in an endoscope depending on whether or not a captured image is in focus. US Patent 12,193,642 adjusts an imaging device in an endoscope depending on whether or not the endoscope is inserted into a patient.
Claim Interpretation
Claims 1-20 are interpreted as claiming subject matter that is eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 (Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 216, 110 USPQ2d at 1980; Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79-80, 86-87, 101 USPQ2d at 1968-69, 1971), for reciting additional elements that integrate additional elements to the judicial exception of an abstract idea into a practical application. That is, exemplary Claims 1, 16, and 18 describe an abstract idea of receiving an image and calculating a focus level for an endoscope. Thus, Examiner interprets these operations as meeting the conditions of Prong One of an Alice/Mayo analysis. However, Claims 1, 16, and 18 further claim focusing the endoscope through the use of auto-focus or a predetermined focus position. Examiner interprets these operations as meeting the conditions of Prong 2 of an Alice/Mayo analysis, by integrating the abstract idea into a practical application by modifying the lens focus of an endoscope. MPEP 2106.04(II)(A).
The term “circuitry configured to” claimed in Claims 1, 5-6, and 10-13 is interpreted as being definite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), since the claimed circuitry is clearly a type of processing circuit that performs the claimed processor operations, and is explicitly defined in paragraph [0185] of the present specification as “may include one or more…processors”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The present rejection(s) reference specific passages from cited prior art. However, Applicant is advised that the rejections are based on the entirety of each cited prior art. That is, each cited prior art reference “must be considered in its entirety”. Therefore, Applicant is advised to review all portions of the cited prior art if traversing a rejection based on the cited prior art.
Claims 1, 4, 10, 12, 15-16, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshino et al. (US PGPUB 2014/0111628 – “Yoshino”) in view of Kokubu (US PGPUB 2018/0020152 – “Kokubu”) and Ohsawa (US Patent 4,905,668 – “Ohsawa”).
Regarding Claim 1, Yoshino discloses:
An endoscope system (endoscope system shown in Yoshino FIG. 1), comprising:
circuitry (Yoshino FIG. 1, processing section 300) configured to:
monitor a characteristic of an endoscope including an imaging device (Yoshino FIG. 1, image sensor 280) and a scope (Yoshino FIG. 1, imaging section 200) coupled to the imaging device, wherein the characteristic is a focus evaluation value of the endoscope system (Yoshino FIG. 2, observation mode determination section 331; Yoshino paragraph [0065], “The observation mode determination section 331 determines the observation mode (focus mode) based on the position information about the zoom lens output from the zoom lens control section 320, and AF start/stop information output from the operation section 600.”);
in the event that the focus evaluation value indicates that the endoscope system is in a first state, perform auto focus control of a focus position of the endoscope system (Yoshino paragraph [0065], “the observation mode determination section 331 selects a fixed focus mode when the zoom lens is positioned on the WIDE side relative to a given position D, and outputs the position information about the zoom lens to the focus lens position determination section 332”); and
in the event that the focus evaluation value indicates that the endoscope system is in a second state, set the focus position of the endoscope system to a predetermined focus position (Yoshino paragraph [0065], “The observation mode determination section 331 also selects the fixed focus mode when the zoom lens is positioned on the TELE side relative to the given position D”).
Yoshino does not explicitly disclose that the first state is the system being an in-focus state, such that autofocus control is initiated if the image is in-focus, and the second state is the system being in an out-of-focus state, such the system is set to a predetermined focus position the image is out-of- focus.
Thus, Yoshino does not explicitly disclose:
an imaging system, wherein in the event that the focus evaluation value indicates that the endoscope system is in an in-focus state, perform auto focus control of a focus position of the endoscope system; and
an imaging system, wherein in the event that the focus evaluation value indicates that the endoscope system is in an out-of-focus state, set the focus position of the endoscope system to a predetermined focus position.
Kokubu is analogous art in the field of endoscopic imaging that teaches an imaging system (Kokubu FIG. 1, imaging device 1, such as an endoscope; see Kokubu paragraph [0066]) wherein in the event that the focus evaluation value indicates that the endoscope system is in an in-focus state, perform auto focus control of a focus position of the endoscope system (Kokubu FIG. 1, control unit 30 including an autofocus calculation unit 32, lens control unit 33, and focus lens 16; Kokubu paragraph [0029], “AF calculation unit 32 can output the information for moving the focus lens 16 to the lens control unit 33. Further, when determining that focusing is achieved, the AF calculation unit 32 can output the fact of focusing being achieved to the focusing evaluation unit 34”; Kokubu paragraph [0031], “AF calculation unit 32 can maintain the current state if the current state is the focusing state, and can perform auto-focus processing again if the current state is the false focusing state, based on the evaluation result”; Examiner interprets the “focusing state” as the image being in focus, which the AF calculation unit 32 will maintain if focus is lost).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Kokubu’s auto-focus system with the endoscope system disclosed by Yoshino. A person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine these prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of an endoscope system that maintains focus for a physical feature being imaged.
Yoshino in view of Kokubu does not explicitly teach an imaging system, wherein in the event that the focus evaluation value indicates that the endoscope system is in an out-of-focus state, set the focus position of the endoscope system to a predetermined focus position.
Ohsawa is analogous art in the field of endoscopic imaging that teaches an imaging system (Ohsawa FIG. 4, endoscope 11), wherein in the event that the focus evaluation value indicates that the endoscope system is in an out-of-focus state, set the focus position of the endoscope system to a predetermined focus position (Ohsawa FIGs. 28-29, focus adjusting means 241; Ohsawa col. 19 lines 12-14, “by the focus adjusting means 241, the image forming lens 38 and solid state imaging device 40 are moved and the focus of the photographing means is moved to a predetermined position to obtain an in-focus state”). Examiner interprets this passages as teaching moving from an out-of-focus state to the in-focus state, based operation of the focus adjusting means 241.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Ohsawa’s focus adjusting means with the endoscope system taught by Yoshino in view of Kokubu. A person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine these prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of an endoscope system that has both a autofocus based on an image characteristic (Kokubu) and focus based on the type of endoscope being used (Ohsawa).
Regarding Claim 4, Yoshino in view of Kokubu and Ohsawa teaches the features of Claim 1, as described above.
Ohsawa further teaches wherein the predetermined focus position is a focus position detected immediately prior to the focus evaluation value indicating that the endoscope system is in the out-of-focus state (Ohsawa FIGs. 28-29, focus adjusting means 241; Ohsawa col. 19 lines 12-14, “by the focus adjusting means 241, the image forming lens 38 and solid state imaging device 40 are moved and the focus of the photographing means is moved to a predetermined position to obtain an in-focus state”). Examiner interprets this passages as teaching that Ohsawa’s “predetermined position” is determined before the photographing means are moved. Examiner also notes that the term “immediately” is not defined in the specification, and thus the claim is interpreted as claiming that the predetermined focus position is detected prior to the out-of-focus state occurring.
Regarding Claim 10, Yoshino in view of Kokubu and Ohsawa teaches the features of Claim 1, as described above.
Ohsawa further teaches wherein the circuitry is further configured to output to a display (Ohsawa FIG. 4, monitor 31) a first captured image (Ohsawa col. 5 lines 29-31, “The video signal from the above mentioned signal processing circuit 42 is input into a monitor 31 in which the endoscope image is displayed”) obtained just prior to the focus evaluation value indicating that the endoscope system is in the out-of-focus state (Examiner interprets this passage as teaching moving from an out-of-focus state to the in-focus state, based operation of the focus adjusting means 241, of the image displayed on monitor 31).
Regarding Claim 12, Yoshino in view of Kokubu and Ohsawa teaches the features of Claim 1, as described above.
Ohsawa teaches wherein the circuitry is configured to set the focus to the predetermined focus position by moving a focus lens of the endoscope system to a reference position (Ohsawa FIGs. 28-29, focus adjusting means 241; Ohsawa col. 19 lines 12-14, “by the focus adjusting means 241, the image forming lens 38 and solid state imaging device 40 are moved and the focus of the photographing means is moved to a predetermined position to obtain an in-focus state”).
Regarding Claim 15, Yoshino in view of Kokubu and Ohsawa teaches the features of Claim 1, as described above.
Yoshino further discloses wherein the predetermined focus position is set to a position that provides a deeper depth of field than a position used during the auto focus control (Yoshino FIG. 12, lens 12; Yoshino paragraph [0140], “lens 12 may be moved to a given fixed position Dz that corresponds to a deep depth of field (i.e., the position Dz in FIG. 12) when the continuous AF mode has been disabled. Since the position Dz is situated on the wide-angle side relative to the given position Dw, and corresponds to a deep depth of field, it is possible to easily achieve a state in which the object is brought into focus when the continuous AF mode has been disabled (i.e., when the continuous AF operation has been stopped)).
Regarding Claim 16, Yoshino discloses:
A non-transitory computer readable medium having stored thereon a program that, when executed by a computer (Yoshino FIG. 1 processing section 300; Yoshino paragraph [0194], “focus control device and the like according to the embodiments of the invention may include a processor and a memory. The processor may be a central processing unit (CPU)…the invention is implemented by causing the processor to execute the instruction.”), causes the computer to execute processing, the processing comprising:
receiving an image signal from an image sensor (Yoshino FIG. 1, image sensor 280 and A/D conversion section 310; Yoshino paragraph [0061], “A/D conversion section 310 converts analog signals output from the image sensor 280 into digital image signals, and outputs the digital image signals to the focus lens control section 330 and the image processing section 340”));
calculating a focus evaluation value based on the image signal (Yoshino FIG. 2, observation mode determination section 331; Yoshino paragraph [0065], “The observation mode determination section 331 determines the observation mode (focus mode) based on the position information about the zoom lens output from the zoom lens control section 320, and AF start/stop information output from the operation section 600.”).
Yoshino does not explicitly disclose performing auto focus control of a focus lens when the focus evaluation value indicates an in-focus state.
Kokubu is analogous art in the field of endoscopic imaging that teaches performing auto focus control of a focus lens when the focus evaluation value indicates an in-focus stat (Kokubu FIG. 1, control unit 30 including an autofocus calculation unit 32, lens control unit 33, and focus lens 16; Kokubu paragraph [0029], “AF calculation unit 32 can output the information for moving the focus lens 16 to the lens control unit 33. Further, when determining that focusing is achieved, the AF calculation unit 32 can output the fact of focusing being achieved to the focusing evaluation unit 34”; Kokubu paragraph [0031], “AF calculation unit 32 can maintain the current state if the current state is the focusing state, and can perform auto-focus processing again if the current state is the false focusing state, based on the evaluation result”; Examiner interprets the “focusing state” as the image being in focus, which the AF calculation unit 32 will maintain if focus is lost).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Kokubu’s auto-focus system with the method disclosed by Yoshino. A person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine these prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of an endoscope system that maintains focus for a physical feature being imaged.
Yoshino in view of Kokubu does not explicitly teach moving the focus lens to a reference position when the focus evaluation value indicates an out-of-focus state.
Ohsawa is analogous art in the field of endoscopic imaging that teaches moving the focus lens to a reference position when the focus evaluation value indicates an out-of-focus state (Ohsawa FIGs. 28-29, focus adjusting means 241; Ohsawa col. 19 lines 12-14, “by the focus adjusting means 241, the image forming lens 38 and solid state imaging device 40 are moved and the focus of the photographing means is moved to a predetermined position to obtain an in-focus state”). Examiner interprets this passages as teaching moving from an out-of-focus state to the in-focus state, based operation of the focus adjusting means 241.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Ohsawa’s focus adjusting means with the method taught by Yoshino in view of Kokubu. A person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine these prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of an endoscope system that has both a autofocus based on an image characteristic (Kokubu) and focus based on the type of endoscope being used (Ohsawa).
Regarding Claim 19, Yoshino discloses:
A method for controlling an endoscope, comprising:
monitoring, via circuitry (Yoshino FIG. 2, observation mode determination section 331), a focus evaluation value derived from an image sensor (Yoshino paragraph [0065], “The observation mode determination section 331 determines the observation mode (focus mode) based on the position information about the zoom lens output from the zoom lens control section 320, and AF start/stop information output from the operation section 600.”).
Yoshino does not explicitly disclose performing auto focus control while the focus evaluation value indicates an in-focus state.
Kokubu is analogous art in the field of imaging control that teaches performing auto focus control while the focus evaluation value indicates an in-focus state (Kokubu FIG. 1, control unit 30 including an autofocus calculation unit 32, lens control unit 33, and focus lens 16; Kokubu paragraph [0029], “AF calculation unit 32 can output the information for moving the focus lens 16 to the lens control unit 33. Further, when determining that focusing is achieved, the AF calculation unit 32 can output the fact of focusing being achieved to the focusing evaluation unit 34”; Kokubu paragraph [0031], “AF calculation unit 32 can maintain the current state if the current state is the focusing state, and can perform auto-focus processing again if the current state is the false focusing state, based on the evaluation result”; Examiner interprets the “focusing state” as the image being in focus, which the AF calculation unit 32 will maintain if focus is lost).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Kokubu’s auto-focus method with the method disclosed by Yoshino. A person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine these prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of an endoscope system that maintains focus for a physical feature being imaged.
Yoshino in view of Kokubu does not explicitly teach moving a focus lens to a predetermined fixed position while the focus evaluation value indicates an out-of-focus state.
Ohsawa is analogous art in the field of imaging control that teaches moving a focus lens to a predetermined fixed position while the focus evaluation value indicates an out-of-focus state (Ohsawa FIGs. 28-29, focus adjusting means 241; Ohsawa col. 19 lines 12-14, “by the focus adjusting means 241, the image forming lens 38 and solid state imaging device 40 are moved and the focus of the photographing means is moved to a predetermined position to obtain an in-focus state”). Examiner interprets this passages as teaching moving from an out-of-focus state to the in-focus state, based operation of the focus adjusting means 241.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Ohsawa’s focus adjusting means with the method taught by Yoshino in view of Kokubu. A person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine these prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of an endoscope system that has both a autofocus based on an image characteristic (Kokubu) and focus based on the type of endoscope being used (Ohsawa).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshino et al. (US PGPUB 2014/0111628 – “Yoshino”) in view of Kokubu (US PGPUB 2018/0020152 – “Kokubu”), Ohsawa (US Patent 4,905,668 – “Ohsawa”), and Kaneko et al. (US PGPUB 2015/0320301 – “Kaneko).
Regarding Claim 2, Yoshino in view of Kokubu and Ohsawa teaches the features of Claim 1, as described above.
Yanagihara in view of Kokubu and Ohsawa does not explicitly teach wherein the predetermined focus position is a fixed focus position stored in a memory.
Kaneko is analogous art in the field of endoscopic imaging that teaches wherein the predetermined focus position is a fixed focus position stored in a memory (Kaneko FIG. 1, objective lens 24 in endoscope 2; Kaneko paragraph [0082], “information indicating positional relationship between a central position of the objective lens 24 and a central position of an effective pixel region of the CCD 25 may be stored in advance in a memory (not illustrated) provided at the endoscope 2”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Kaneko’s focus position memory with the endoscope system taught by Yoshino in view of Kokubu and Ohsawa. A person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine these prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of an endoscope system that aligns an objective lens such that images are in focus and central to a monitor (see Kaneko paragraph [0082]).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshino et al. (US PGPUB 2014/0111628 – “Yoshino”) in view of Kokubu (US PGPUB 2018/0020152 – “Kokubu”), Ohsawa (US Patent 4,905,668 – “Ohsawa”), and Wilk (US PGPUB 2006/0241691 – “Wilk”).
Regarding Claim 3, Yoshino in view of Kokubu and Ohsawa teaches the features of Claim 1, as described above.
Yoshino in view of Kokubu and Ohsawa does not explicitly teach wherein the predetermined focus position is a focus position used when an internal organ in a living body is in focus.
Wilk is analogous art in the field of endoscopic imaging that teaches wherein the predetermined focus position is a focus position used when an internal organ (Wilk FIG. 1A, esophagus ES and stomach ST) in a living body is in focus (Wilk FIG. 1A, lens 18 fixed to the distal end of endoscope 12; Wilk paragraph [0054], “Endoscope 12 is further provided with a lens 18 for focusing reflected light onto a charge-coupled device”). Examiner interprets the fixed position of Wilk’s lens 18 as being a predetermined focus position.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Wilk’s fixed/predetermined positioned lens with the endoscope system taught by Yoshino in view of Kokubu and Ohsawa. A person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine these prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of an endoscope system having a fixed lens that can be maneuvered, without risk of being knocked loose, into an optical viewing focus location.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshino et al. (US PGPUB 2014/0111628 – “Yoshino”) in view of Kokubu (US PGPUB 2018/0020152 – “Kokubu”), Ohsawa (US Patent 4,905,668 – “Ohsawa”), and Ishibashi (US PGPUB 2009/0143671 – “Ishibashi”).
Regarding Claim 5, Yoshino in view of Kokubu and Ohsawa teaches the features of Claim 1, as described above.
Yoshino in view of Kokubu and Ohsawa does not explicitly teach wherein the circuitry is configured to determine that the endoscope system is in the out-of-focus state when the focus evaluation value is lower than a threshold for a predetermined period of time.
Ishibashi is analogous art in the field of medical imaging that teaches wherein the circuitry is configured to determine that the endoscope system is in the out-of-focus state when the focus evaluation value is lower than a threshold for a predetermined period of time (Ishibashi FIG. 2, blur amount correction section 232; Ishibashi FIG. 4, blood vessel image 412; Ishibashi paragraph [0062], “the blood vessel image 412 as having the greatest blur amount from among the blood vessel images 411 to 415 and also as having a blur amount greater than a preset value, based on the blur amounts calculated by the blur amount calculating section 232”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Ishibashi’s blur amount calculating logic with the endoscope system taught by Yoshino in view of Kokubu and Ohsawa. A person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine these prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of an endoscope system capable of identifying images with excessive levels of blur, in order to either select a non-blurry image or adjust the parameters of the endoscope system (see Ishibashi paragraphs [0060] – [0062]).
Claims 6-7 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshino et al. (US PGPUB 2014/0111628 – “Yoshino”) in view of Kokubu (US PGPUB 2018/0020152 – “Kokubu”), Ohsawa (US Patent 4,905,668 – “Ohsawa”), and Yanagihara (US PGPUB 2020/0069149 – “Yanagihara”).
Regarding Claim 6, Yoshino in view of Kokubu and Ohsawa teaches the features of Claim 1, as described above.
Yoshino in view of Kokubu and Ohsawa wherein the circuitry is further configured to monitor a second characteristic indicative of whether the scope is inserted in a living body or not.
Yanagihara is analogous art in the field of endoscopic imaging that teaches wherein the circuitry is further configured to monitor a second characteristic indicative of whether the scope is inserted in a living body or not (Yanagihara
FIG. 1, insertion portion 11; Yanagihara FIG. 5, outside-the-body determination portion 41a;Yanagihara paragraph [0053], “outside-the-body determination portion 41a is configured to make a determination as to whether or not the insertion portion 11 is inserted in the body or the insertion portion 11 is placed outside the body (hereinafter called “inside-the-body determination” or “outside-the-body determination”), and to obtain a determination result”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Yanagihara’s outside-the-body determination portion with the endoscope system taught by Yoshino in view of Kokubu and Ohsawa. A person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine these prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of an endoscope system that turns off, thus reducing power consumption, when not inside the patient (see Yanagihara paragraphs [0053] – [0054]).
Regarding Claim 7, Yoshino in view of Kokubu, Ohsawa, and Yanagihara teaches the features of Claim 6, as described above.
Yanagihara further teaches wherein the second characteristic is a color (Yanagihara paragraph [0059], “For example, the image analysis portion 29 feeds the standby mode control portion 41 with a determination result as to whether or not the image captured by the imaging portion 20 is evenly tinged with red. If the degree of the reddish tinge of the captured image (for example, the number of reddish pixels on a screen) is higher or greater than a predetermined threshold, the outside-the-body determination portion 41a of the standby mode control portion 41 may determine that the insertion portion 11 is inserted in the body.”) or a luminance (Yanagihara paragraph [0059], “wireless endoscope 1 also includes the image analysis portion 29. Through an image analysis, for example, an analysis of the luminance or color of an image captured by the imaging portion 20, the image analysis portion 29 determines whether the image is an image inside the body of a subject or an endoscopic image or an image outside the body of the subject.”) of an image captured by the imaging device.
Regarding Claim 17, Yoshino in view of Kokubu and Ohsawa teaches the features of Claim 16, as described above.
Yoshino in view of Kokubu and Ohsawa does not explicitly teach wherein the out-of-focus state corresponds to a condition where the imaging unit is removed from a living body.
Yanagihara is analogous art in the field of endoscopic imaging that teaches wherein the out-of-focus state corresponds to a condition where the imaging unit is removed from a living body (Yanagihara paragraph [0053], “outside-the-body determination portion 41a is configured to make a determination as to whether or not the insertion portion 11 is inserted in the body or the insertion portion 11 is placed outside the body (hereinafter called “inside-the-body determination” or “outside-the-body determination”), and to obtain a determination result”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize Yanagihara’s outside-the-body determination portion 41a with the method taught by Yoshino in view of Kokubu and Ohsawa. A person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine these prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of a method that puts an endoscope into standby mode when outside of the body, in order to prevent damage to the scope (see Yanagihara paragraph [0062]).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshino et al. (US PGPUB 2014/0111628 – “Yoshino”) in view of Kokubu (US PGPUB 2018/0020152 – “Kokubu”), Ohsawa (US Patent 4,905,668 – “Ohsawa”), Yanagihara (US PGPUB 2020/0069149 – “Yanagihara”), and Yoshida (US PGPUB 2013/0053643 – “Yoshida”).
Regarding Claim 8, Yoshino in view of Kokubu, Ohsawa, and Yanagihara teaches the features of Claim 6, as described above.
Yoshino in view of Kokubu, Ohsawa, and Yanagihara does not explicitly teach wherein the second characteristic is a shape of a distal end port of a trocar in an image captured by the imaging device.
Yoshida is analogous art in the field of endoscopic imaging that teaches wherein the second characteristic is a shape of a distal end port of a trocar in an image captured by the imaging device scope (Yoshida FIG. 1, trocar 26; Yoshida FIG. 5, automatic detecting part 90 and image processing part 86; Yoshida paragraph [0066], “automatic detecting part 90 is a processing part that automatically detects, based on the image data given from the image processing part 86, the state in which the endoscope insertion part 24 is inserted into or removed from the insertion path 48 of the trocar 26. When determining that the tip surface 55 of the endoscope insertion part 24 is present inside the trocar 26”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Yoshida’s trocar sensing system with the endoscope system taught by Yoshino in view of Kokubu, Ohsawa, and Yanagihara. A person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine these prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of an endoscope system that shows a user that the insertion portion is passing through a trocar into a patient, for purposes of placement and usage of the insertion portion.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshino et al. (US PGPUB 2014/0111628 – “Yoshino”) in view of Kokubu (US PGPUB 2018/0020152 – “Kokubu”), Ohsawa (US Patent 4,905,668 – “Ohsawa”), Yanagihara (US PGPUB 2020/0069149 – “Yanagihara”), and Ishikawa et al. (US PGPUB 2019/0008367 – “Ishikawa”).
Regarding Claim 9, Yoshino in view of Kokubu, Ohsawa, and Yanagihara teaches the features of Claim 6, as described above.
Yoshino in view of Kokubu, Ohsawa, and Yanagihara does not explicitly teach wherein the second characteristic is a setting information from a support arm coupled to the scope.
Ishikawa is analogous art in the field of medical imaging that teaches wherein the second characteristic is a setting information from a support arm coupled to the scope (Ishikawa FIG. 2, image processor 216, imager 2241, and arm 22; Ishikawa paragraph [0049], “image processor 216 calculates the positions of the imaging apparatuses (imagers) 2241 to 2441 respectively mounted on the distal end portions of the endoscope arms 22 to 24, in the body (for example, in the abdominal cavity or in the thoracic cavity) of the patient P.”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Ishikawa’s robotic arms with the endoscope system taught by Yoshino in view of Kokubu, Ohsawa, and Yanagihara. A person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine these prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of a robotic system that is able to be aware of a placement of an endoscope within a patient for purposes of positioning and usage.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshino et al. (US PGPUB 2014/0111628 – “Yoshino”) in view of Kokubu (US PGPUB 2018/0020152 – “Kokubu”), Ohsawa (US Patent 4,905,668 – “Ohsawa”), and Murata et al. (US PGPUB 2003/0060679 – “Murata”).
Regarding Claim 11, Yoshino in view of Kokubu and Ohsawa teaches the features of Claim 10, as described above.
Yanagihara in view of Kokubu and Ohsawa does not explicitly teach wherein the circuitry is configured to output the first captured image as a still image while simultaneously outputting a real-time video image from the imaging device.
Murata is analogous art in the field of medical imaging that teaches wherein the circuitry (Murata FIG. 6, memory controller 66, Murata paragraph [0091], “memory controller 66 executes processing in…a PinP (picture-in-picture) mode”) is configured to output the first captured image as a still image while simultaneously outputting a real-time video image from the imaging device (Murata FIG. 7E, showing moving image 87 and still image 88 simultaneously displayed).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Murata’s PinP system with the endoscope system taught by Yanagihara in view of Kokubu and Ohsawa. A person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine these prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of an endoscope system capable of displaying a still image as a slave to a real-time moving image (see Murata paragraph [0104]), in order to coordinate the capture of a still image with a moving image.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshino et al. (US PGPUB 2014/0111628 – “Yoshino”) in view of Kokubu (US PGPUB 2018/0020152 – “Kokubu”), Ohsawa (US Patent 4,905,668 – “Ohsawa”), and Takahashi (US PGPUB 2013/0188029 – “Takahashi”).
Regarding Claim 13, Yoshino in view of Kokubu and Ohsawa teaches the features of Claim 1, as described above.
Yoshino in view of Kokubu and Ohsawa does not explicitly teach wherein the circuitry is further configured to gradually resume the auto focus control after the focus evaluation value indicates a return to the in-focus state.
Takahashi is analogous art in the field of imaging control that teaches wherein the circuitry is further configured to gradually resume the auto focus control after the focus evaluation value indicates a return to the in-focus state (Takahashi paragraph [0069], “it is desirable to perform the AF process since an image having sufficient contrast is acquired. An in-focus image can be acquired by resuming the AF process by pressing the AF resumption button.” Examiner interprets this passage as teaching auto-focus is initiated once the image is in focus. Examiner also notes that the adjective “gradually resume” is not defined in the present specification, and thus is interpreted as any temporal resumption).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Takahashi’s AF process with the endoscope taught by Yoshino in view of Kokubu and Ohsawa. A person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine these prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of an endoscope that keeps an image in focus during motion of the imaged object (see Yoshino paragraph [0112]).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshino et al. (US PGPUB 2014/0111628 – “Yoshino”) in view of Kokubu (US PGPUB 2018/0020152 – “Kokubu”), Ohsawa (US Patent 4,905,668 – “Ohsawa”), and Ichikawa et al. (US PGPUB 2017/0302867 – “Ichikawa”).
Regarding Claim 14, Yoshino in view of Kokubu and Ohsawa teaches the features of Claim 1, as described above.
Yoshino in view of Kokubu and Ohsawa does not explicitly teach wherein the focus evaluation value is calculated based on a high-frequency component of an image signal.
Ichikawa is analogous art in the field of imaging control that teaches wherein the focus evaluation value is calculated based on a high-frequency component of an image signal (Ichikawa FIG. 22, auto-focus processing unit 117; Ichikawa paragraph [0235], “AF processing unit 117 extracts a high-frequency component signal from the image data, and performs auto-focus (AF) calculation processing onto the high-frequency component signal, thereby determining focusing evaluation of the imaging system 2, thereby performing automatic focus adjustment of the imaging system”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Ichikawa’s use of a high-frequency component (contrast) of an image with the endoscope system taught by Yoshino in view of Kokubu and Ohsawa. A person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine these prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of an endoscope system that compensates for excessive contrast using auto-focus (see Ichikawa paragraph [0235]).
Claims 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshino et al. (US PGPUB 2014/0111628 – “Yoshino”) in view of Kokubu (US PGPUB 2018/0020152 – “Kokubu”), Ohsawa (US Patent 4,905,668 – “Ohsawa”), and Yata (US PGPUB 2013/0300917 – “Yata”).
Regarding Claim 18, Yoshino in view of Kokubu and Ohsawa teaches the features of Claim 16, as described above.
Yoshino in view of Kokubu and Ohsawa does not explicitly teach wherein the reference position is a focus position previously used to focus on an internal organ.
Yata is analogous art in the field of endoscopic imaging that teaches wherein the reference position is a focus position previously used to focus on an internal organ (Yata FIG. 4, Yata paragraph [0079], “When automatic tracking is stopped…lens is fixed to a previous focus position”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Yata’s method of returning the lens to a fixed position with the method taught by . A person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine these prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of a method for resetting the position of the focus lens to a position known to put the image in focus (see Yata paragraph [0079]).
Regarding Claim 20, Yoshino in view of Kokubu and Ohsawa teaches the features of Claim 19, as described above.
Yoshino in view of Kokubu and Ohsawa does not explicitly teach displaying a guidance message on a display when the focus lens is moved to the predetermined fixed position.
Yata is analogous art in the field of imaging control that teaches displaying a guidance message on a display when the focus lens is moved to the predetermined fixed position organ (Yata FIG. 4, tracking off message 306; Yata paragraph [0079], “When automatic tracking is stopped…lens is fixed to a previous focus position”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Yata’s method of returning the lens to a fixed position with the method taught by . A person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine these prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of a method for resetting the position of the focus lens to a position known to put the image in focus (see Yata paragraph [0079]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Hino (US PGPUB 2018/0042465 – “Hino”), which teaches in Hino FIG. 1 and Hino paragraph [0034] an endoscope having a focus adjustment section 71 that determines that a lens 44 is in a predetermined position (Hino paragraph [0034], “focus adjustment section 71 is electrically connected to a control section 93 to be described later. The focus adjustment section 71 is configured to be capable of transmitting a setting signal indicating that the variable focus objective optical system 41 is in the near point observation state to the control section 93 when the movable lens 44 is located at a predetermined position close to the image pickup section 61”).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JIM BOICE whose telephone number is (571)272-6565. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00am - 5:00pm Eastern.
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, Anhtuan Nguyen can be reached at (571)272-4963. 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.
JIM BOICE
Examiner
Art Unit 3795
/JAMES EDWARD BOICE/Examiner, Art Unit 3795
Prosecution Insights