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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 2-15 in the reply filed on June 02, 2026 is acknowledged.
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 factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 2, 3, 8, 9, 10, 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matousek et al. (US 2008/0076985, hereinafter Matousek ‘985) in view of Tromberg et al. (US 2006/0184043, hereinafter Tromberg ‘043).
In re claims 2 and 8, Matousek ‘985 teaches a method comprising: causing excitation light to be emitted from a distal tip of an endoscope to illuminate a scene (0037, 0045, 0067, 0081); receiving a fluorescence signal indicative of fluorescence emitted by a portion of the scene in response to illumination by the excitation light (0027, 0058, 0059); accessing a depth map indicative of intensity variations of excitation signal as a function of spatial separation (0063, 0082, 0097, fig. 11) from the distal tip of the endoscope (0037, 0045, 0067, 0081, a detection head is the distal tip); generating a
Matousek ‘985 fails to teach normalized fluorescence signal.
Tromberg ‘043 teaches generating a normalized fluorescence signal based on the depth map and the fluorescence signal (0123, 0126).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art at the time of invention to modify the method/device of Matousek ‘985 to include the features of Tromberg ‘043 in order to provide stable, reproducible, and quantitative results.
In re claims 3 and 9, Matousek ‘985 teaches further comprising determining, based on at least one of the depth map or the spatial separation, an amount of excitation signal causing the fluorescence to be emitted from the portion of the scene (fig. 11).
In re claim 10, Matousek ‘985 teaches wherein the operations further comprise: selectively changing, using an optical filter, a direction of propagation of the portion of the excitation signal towards an image sensor of the endoscope, while allowing at least a portion of the fluorescence emitted from the portion of the scene to propagate towards the image sensor (0085).
In re claim 11, Matousek ‘985 teaches wherein the optical filter comprises a reflective element disposed at an angle with respect to the direction of propagation (fig. 8, either 109, or 0085, 105 is being reflect to a different direction by two reflectors).
Claim(s) 6 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matousek ‘985 and Tromberg ‘043 in view of Ono (US 2013/0026390, hereinafter Ono ‘390).
In re claim 6 and 14, Matousek ‘985 and Tromberg ‘043 fail to teach wherein causing presentation of the visual representation comprises: receiving user-input on a threshold condition associated with the normalized fluorescence signal; determining regions where the normalized fluorescence signal satisfies the threshold condition; and generating the visual representation such that the visual representation includes identification of the regions where the normalized fluorescence signal satisfies the threshold condition.
Ono ‘390 teaches wherein causing presentation of the visual representation comprises: receiving user-input on a threshold condition (0064) associated with the normalized fluorescence signal; determining regions where the normalized fluorescence signal satisfies the threshold condition; and generating the visual representation such that the visual representation includes identification of the regions where the normalized fluorescence signal satisfies the threshold condition (abstract, 0005-0006, 0030, 0055-0058).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art at the time of invention to modify the method/device of Matousek ‘985 to include the features of Tromberg ‘043 in order to provide stable, reproducible, and quantitative results, and to include the features of Ono ‘390 in order to choose the region of interest that user feel the need to pay extra attention to.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-5, 7, 12-13, 15 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BO JOSEPH PENG whose telephone number is (571)270-1792. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday: 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, ANNE M KOZAK can be reached at (571) 270-0552. 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.
/BO JOSEPH PENG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3797
Prosecution Insights