searDETAILED 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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Levine (WO 2022/040251).
Regarding claim 1, Levine teaches A method of enhancing a monocular video feed, comprising:
inserting a procedural element into a body, the procedural element having a camera (paragraphs [0005]-[0006]);
capturing the monocular video feed, with the camera, of at least one anatomical structure within the body (paragraphs [0005]-[0006]); and
sending the monocular video feed to an external system having a processor and a memory (paragraph [0006], [0020], [0040], [0044], [0045] video processing device/control tower), the external system being configured to (1) process the monocular video feed (paragraphs [0006]-[0011]), and (2) generate an enhanced video feed, the enhanced video feed including a real-time, three-dimensional perspective of the at least one anatomical structure (paragraphs [0008], [0068]-[0071]).
Regarding claim 2, Levine teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the external system is configured to process the monocular video feed using an artificial intelligence algorithm (paragraph [0064]).
CRM claim 18 is drawn to the CRM embodying the method claimed in claim 1. Therefore, the CRM claim 18 corresponds to the method claim 1, and is rejected for the same reasons of anticipation as used 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.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Levine.
Regarding claim 17, Levine teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the procedural element is capable of being used in an endoscopy a bronchoscopy, a cystoscopy, and a video laryngoscopy (paragraph [0005]). Levine describes the use of an endoscope, which is a broad description including a bronchoscopy, cystoscopy, and laryngoscopy. Therefore even though Levine only specifically describes an endoscope it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to specify the endoscope as being capable of being applied to bronchoscopy, a cystoscopy, and a video laryngoscopy to describe a wider, more specific, array of services in order to increase the use of the product.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Levine in view or Bork (US 20230277249 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Levine teaches the method of claim 1 wherein the external system is configured to process the monocular video feed using machine learning algorithms (paragraphs [0007], [0060]).
Lavine fails to teach machine learning algorithms capable of identifying and visually enhancing certain anatomical structures from the monocular video feed.
However, Bork teaches machine learning algorithms capable of identifying and visually enhancing certain anatomical structures from the monocular video feed (paragraphs [0023], [0024]). Bork describes an augmented reality system that can identify certain anatomical structure and enhance certain objects such as tissue regions. Bork is considered analogous to the claimed invention as it is in the same field of medical imaging and image processing. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to combine the teachings of Bork with Levine in order to improve the visualization of anatomy and medical operations, which in turn can improve patient outcomes.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Levine in view of Devadathan et al., "StereoSurge: A Stereoscopic Solution for Pre-Surgical Planning and Medical Education," 2025 6th International Conference on Recent Advances in Information Technology (RAIT), Dhanbad, India, 2025, pp. 1-6, doi: 10.1109/RAIT65068.2025.11089178 (hereinafter “Devadathan).
Regarding claim 4, Levine teaches the method of claim 1. Levine fails to teach wherein the external system is configured to enhance depth perception according to adjustable user preferences and specific procedural requirements.
However, Devadathan teaches wherein the external system is configured to enhance depth perception (section III paragraph 3, section V D) according to adjustable user preferences and specific procedural requirements (section IV. Paragraphs 1 and 2, section I). Devadathan describes a method of enhancing depth perception in a stereoscopic image. Devadathan is considered analogous to the claimed invention as it is in the same field of medical imaging and image processing. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to combine the teachings of Devadathan with Levine in order to improve both the learning and diagnostic processes.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Levine in view of Lu (CN 117115188 A) .
Regarding claim 5, Levine teaches the method of claim 1.
However Lu (CN 117115188 B) teaches wherein the external system is capable of color enhancement of particular anatomical structures to make the particular anatomical structures more visually prominent (last paragraph of pg. 2 – “data enhancement adopts 5 kinds of method, respectively is random turning, random cutting, random rotating, colour enhancement, adding random noise, wherein, colour enhancement comprises contrast, brightness, intensity, sharpness”). Lu describes enhancing the image of a polyp as a step of preprocessing data to be fed into a machine learning algorithm. This enhancement of the polyp image involves color enhancement. Lu is considered analogous to the claimed invention as it is in the same field of medical imaging and image processing. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to combine the teachings of Lu with Levine in order to improve the appearance of an anatomical structure and artificial intelligence performance.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Levine in view of Nett (US 2025/0037326 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Levine teaches the method of claim 1 further comprising an overlay (paragraph [0006]). Levine fails to explicitly teach a semi-transparent color overlay on a particular anatomical structure and displaying an image that includes the semi-transparent color overlay disposed over the particular anatomical structure.
However, Nett teaches providing a semi-transparent color overlay on a particular anatomical structure and displaying an image that includes the semi-transparent color overlay disposed over the particular anatomical structure (Abstract, fig. 3, paragraph [0003]). Nett describes a system which displays a color overlay over anatomical structures in order to accentuate the contrast between diseased and healthy tissues. Nett is considered analogous to the claimed invention as it is in the same field of medical imaging and image processing. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to combine the teachings of Nett with Levine in order to produce a better visualization which better distinguishes an unhealthy anatomical structure.
Claim(s) 7, 10, 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Levine in view of Finn (US 20120160525 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Levine teaches the method of claim 1.
However Finn teaches continuously updating the external system by analyzing a diverse set of procedural videos and incorporating feedback for algorithm refinement within the external system (paragraphs [0013], [0026]). Finn describes a fire detection system which utilizes a continuous feedback loop employing video analytics to improve the fire detection. Finn is considered analogous to the claimed invention as it is in the same field of image processing. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to combine the teachings of Finn with Levine and substitute the videos of a fire detection scenarios with the endoscopic videos of Levine in order to improve algorithmic performance, such as the performance of video enhancement of Levine.
Regarding claim 10, Levine in view of Finn teaches the method of claim 7. Finn further teaches providing real-time feedback and guidance through a user-friendly interface (paragraphs [0429], [0440]). Finn describes an eye test system which can be implemented in a VR setting which includes a user interface and in which in real-time feedback on visual performance can be provided.
Regarding claim 12, Levine teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising operating the external system using a multimodal interaction interface that supports touch, and haptic feedback (haptic feedback [0053], touch screen [0041], [0043]).
Levine fails to teach voice commands.
However Finn teaches voice commands (paragraph [0067]). Finn describes voice commands being used as user input. The motivation to combine Finn and Levine would have been the same as that of claim 7.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Levine in view of Finn and in further view of Lee (US 20260060526 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Levine in view of Finn teaches the method of claim 7. Finn further teaches continuously updating the external system and periodic updates based on new data and insights (paragraph [0026]).
Levine in view of Finn fails to teach wherein continuously updating the external system comprise reinforcement learning techniques and periodic updates to AI models based on new data and insights.
However, Lee teaches wherein continuously updating the external system comprise reinforcement learning techniques (paragraph [0214]) and periodic updates to AI models based on new data and insights (paragraphs [0208], [0209], [0213]). Lee describes a system of virtual reality vision testing. This system involves use of AI to optimize the testing to a user’s needs in real time. This real time optimization process is analogous to updating AI models based on new data and insights. Lee additionally suggests the use of reinforcement learning for the AI model. Lee is considered analogous to the claimed invention as it is in the same field of medical device and image processing. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to combine the teachings of Lee with Levine in view of Finn in order to improve algorithmic performance.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Levine in view of Finn and in further view of Varela (WO 2024201447 A2).
Regarding claim 9, Levine in view of Finn teaches the method of claim 7.
However Varela teaches integrating the external system with existing healthcare IT infrastructures (pgs. 29 & 30 claim 14 sections 2 & 8-10) and sharing information with electronic health records and diagnostic imaging systems (pg. 12 Claim 3 section 1. Dynamic Data Management). Varela describes an integrated remote diagnostic and surgical system. This system is integrated into existing healthcare infrastructures and uses secure methods of information sharing to transmit patient data and other health records. Varela is considered analogous to the claimed invention as it is in the same field of medical imaging and medical diagnostic tools. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to combine the teachings of Varela with Levine in view of Finn in order to implement the medical system in an existing healthcare system and compliant information sharing, improving user accessibility, experience and privacy.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Levine in view of Mahfouz (WO 2017151683 A1) .
Regarding claim 11, Levine teaches the method of claim 1 further comprising providing a cloud-based framework (paragraph [0070]).
Levine fails to teach a cloud-based framework for model training and updates, wherein the framework enables scalable learning and adaptation to new technologies and medical practices.
However Mahfouz teaches a cloud-based framework for model training and updates, wherein the framework enables scalable learning and adaptation to new technologies and medical practices (paragraph [0079]). Mahfouz describes cloud services to enable cloud methods for machine learning calculations, updating data and retrieving data such as patient data. Mahfouz is considered analogous to the claimed invention as it is in the same field of healthcare technologies. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to combine the teachings of Mahfouz with Levine in order to provide up to date patient and medical records, in order to avoid interfering with the processing of a diagnostic or imaging tool, which could experience latency or lag if the machine learning is processed locally.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Levine in view of Dent (US 20250111940 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Levine teaches the method of claim 1. Levine fails to explicitly teach wherein the external system is adaptable to different healthcare settings and support multiple languages.
However Dent teaches wherein the external system is adaptable to different healthcare settings (paragraph [0040]) and support multiple languages (paragraph [0046]). Dent describes a health assistant chat bot which can be utilized in different healthcare settings and provide responses according to the user’s chosen language. Dent is considered analogous to the claimed invention as it is in the same field of integrated healthcare systems and image processing. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to combine the teachings of Dent with Levine in order to improve the systems compatibility and the user experience.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Levine in view of Y. M. Mekki, L. V. Simon, W. D. Freeman and J. Qadir, "Medical Education Metaverses (MedEd Metaverses): Opportunities, Use Case, and Guidelines," in Computer, vol. 58, no. 3, pp. 60-70, March 2025, doi: 10.1109/MC.2024.3474033. (hereinafter "Mekki”).
Regarding claim 14, Levine teaches the method of claim 1. Levine fails to teach wherein the external system features interactive learning interfaces and customizable learning paths for medical professionals.
However, Mekki teaches wherein the external system features interactive learning interfaces and customizable learning paths for medical professionals (fig. 2 & 3, section “Customized flexible structured learning experiences”). Mekki describes a VR education system for medical professionals which includes customizable learning experiences and user interactive learning interfaces. Mekki is considered analogous to the claimed invention as it is i9n the same field of medial technology and image processing. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effecting filing date, to combine the teachings of Mekki with Levine in order to implement a learning system which can improve the efficiency and accuracy of a medical professional’s findings and diagnoses.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Levine in view of Nett and Finn.
Regarding claim 15, Levine teaches the method of claim 1. Levine fails to teach an anatomical highlighting algorithm that adapts and improves its accuracy through continuous learning based on a vast array of procedural videos.
However, Nett teaches an anatomical highlighting algorithm (paragraph [0027]). The motivation to combine Nett with Levine would have been the same as that of claim 6.
Levine in view of Nett fails to teaching an algorithm that adapts and improves its accuracy through continuous learning based on a vast array of procedural videos
However, Finn teaches an algorithm that adapts and improves its accuracy through continuous learning based on a vast array of videos (paragraphs [0013], [0026]). The motivation to combine Finn would have been the same as that of claim 7.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Levine in view of S. Kumar, S. Datta, V. Singh, D. Datta, S. Kumar Singh and R. Sharma, "Applications, Challenges, and Future Directions of Human-in-the-Loop Learning," in IEEE Access, vol. 12, pp. 75735-75760, 2024, doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2024.3401547. (hereinafter "Kumar").
Regarding claim 16, Levine teaches the method of claim 1. Levine fails to teach providing a feedback mechanism to allow medical professionals to provide input and annotations to aid an algorithm's learning and accuracy.
However, Kumar teaches providing a feedback mechanism to allow medical professionals to provide input and annotations to aid an algorithm's learning and accuracy (figs 1 & 2, section II A, & section III C). Kumar describes the machine learning technique of human-in-the-loop learning which incorporates human expertise to annotate training results and improve accuracy. Kumar additionally suggests the use of these techniques in the medical field wherein medical experts are the annotators. Kumar is considered analogous to the claimed invention as it is in the same field of machine learning and medical technology. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to combine the teachings of Kumar with Levine in order to improve algorithmic accuracy.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Thienphrapa (US 20230009335 A1) specifically describes examples of endoscopes including bronchoscope, cystoscope, and laryngoscope (paragraph [0014]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Aidan W McCoy whose telephone number is (571)272-5935. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 AM-5:00 PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Tammy Goddard can be reached at (571)272-7773. 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.
/AIDAN W MCCOY/Examiner, Art Unit 2611
Prosecution Insights