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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) filed June 26, 2026 is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 27 is dependent on claim 1, which has been canceled. For the purpose of examination, the examiner is interpreting claim 27 to be dependent on claim 13.
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.
Claims 13-16 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable by Hayami (US2019/0311476).
Regarding claim 13, Hayami discloses an image processing apparatus (processor 12), comprising: at least one processor (processor 12) configured to: acquire an endoscopic image obtained by image capturing of a photographic subject using an endoscope (endoscope 11 including image pickup device 18 captures object image by light incident from observation window, which is photoelectrically converted to output an image pickup signal, which is fed to video processor 12 [0040]); input the endoscopic image to a trained model that performs a recognition process on a portion having a specific feature in the endoscopic image (lesion detection performed by the differentiation support unit 33 uses machine learning for classification [0084]); obtain a result of the recognition process from the trained model, the result of the recognition process being the information indicating a lesion included in the endoscopic image, or the information indicating a type or a degree of progression of the lesion (lesion can be detected and classified based on surface layer structure [0083-0084], shape [0142-0147] or size [0154-0156]); set the recognition process to be enabled or disabled on the basis of an operation performed on the photographic subject (based on a signal from the endoscope, processor judges whether or not to engage a differentiation classification operation [0007]; differentiation state judgement unit 32 estimates whether or not the operator is differentiating a lesion portion and judges a differentiation state [0055], which is the processing illustrated in Fig. 5; judgement for differentiation state is based on movement amount over a time period [0065-0067]; when the operator is viewing the area closely to find a lesion, the image frame remains relatively still, therefore there is little movement over a time period [0065-0067]– the act of doing this is considered analogous to applicant’s operation); in a case where the recognition process is set to be enabled, output information indicating that the recognition process is enabled and the result of the recognition process to a monitor (when in differentiation state [0079], the differentiation support unit 33 performs differentiation classification of the lesion portion, which is the processing illustrated in Fig. 6 [0081-0083]; differentiation classification result is displayed on monitor 13 [0086-0087] as seen in Fig. 7); and in a case where the recognition process is set to be disabled, output information indicating that the recognition process is disable to the monitor (in a case where the operator is not differentiating the lesion portion, the absence of the lesion information is output information indicating that the differentiation support unit 33 is not performing differentiation classification).
Regarding claim 14, Hayami discloses the image processing apparatus according to claim 13, wherein configuring the recognition process to disabled means not to allow to perform the recognition process, or not to allow a notification of the result of the recognition process (in a case where the operator is not differentiating the lesion portion, the absence of the lesion information is output information indicating that the differentiation support unit 33 is not performing differentiation classification).
Regarding claim 15, Hayami discloses the image processing apparatus according claim 14, further disclosing wherein the at least one processor is configured to output a notification indicating whether the recognition process using the trained model is enabled or disabled (notification of the classification of lesion, such as that shown in Fig. 7, is an indication that the differentiation state is enabled; lack of the notification of the classification lesion, such as that shown in Fig. 7, is an indication that the differentiation state is disabled).
Regarding claim 16, Hayami discloses the image processing apparatus according to claim 14, further disclosing wherein the at least one processor is configured to output the information indicating the lesion as the result of the recognition process to the monitor (Fig. 7 illustrates the monitor appearance when an adenoma lesion has been detected).
Regarding claim 19, Hayami discloses the image processing apparatus according to claim 14, further disclosing wherein the at least one processor is configured to output the information indicating a type or a degree of progression of the lesion to the monitor (Fig. 7 illustrates the monitor appearance when an adenoma lesion has been detected).
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.
Claims 17, 18, 20-24 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayami in view of Takahashi (US2013/0188029).
Regarding claim 17, Hayami discloses the image processing apparatus according to claim 16, but fails to disclose wherein the operation performed on the photographic subject is use of a treatment tool, spraying of a liquid, or cleaning. In the same field of endeavor, Takahashi teaches an image processing apparatus comprising a processor configured to acquire an endoscopic image obtained by image capturing of a photographic subject using an endoscope, input the endoscopic image for image processing (image processing, such as focus control process of Takahashi [0073], analogous to applicant’s recognition process, is performed based on the operation information), set the image processing to be enabled or disabled on the basis of an operation performed on the photographic subject (focus control process is performed based on the operation information from the operation detection sensor, which detects whether discharge/irrigation operation or a tissue treatment operation is performed [0073-0074]), in a case where the image processing is set to be enabled, output information indicating that the image processing is enabled and the result of the image processing to a monitor (AF process/focus control process occurs when there is not treatment tool detected or discharge/irrigation operation [0077], the resulting image that has undergone AF process/focus control process is displayed on the monitor), and in a case where the image processing is set to be disabled, output information indicating that the image processing is disable to the monitor (when water/fluid is introduced to the operation area, focus control process/AF process is suspended [0059-0062, 0077]; when treatment tool is detected, AF process/focus control process also is suspended [0099-0101, 0077], AF process/focus control process is indicated as suspended on the monitor as the in-focus object distance is fixed). Takahashi further teaches that the operation performed on the photographic subject is use of a treatment tool, spraying of a liquid, or cleaning (focus control process is performed based on the operation information from the operation detection sensor, which detects whether discharge/irrigation operation or a tissue treatment operation is performed [0073-0074]). In view of Takahashi, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included wherein the operation type specifies the use of a treatment tool or spraying of a liquid, as taught by Takahasi, to the image processing of Hayami, as it is known in the endoscope art that a treatment tool or fluid from the discharge operation can cause image processing to not effectively function or cause the image to be difficult to observe, therefore requiring the image processing to be suspended [0077].
Regarding claim 18, Hayami, modified by Takahashi, discloses the image processing apparatus according to claim 17. Hayami discloses wherein the operation performed on the photographic subject is identified from the endoscopic image (movement over an amount of time in the image is judged to determine whether the operator is differentiating a lesion portion [0055], which determined by the differentiation state judgement unit 32). Takahashi also teaches wherein the operation performed on the photographic subject is identified from the endoscopic image (treatment tool is detected [0099-0103]; detection of treatment tool based on image processing performed on captured image [0031]; treatment tool can be detected by luminance image [0115-0118]).
Regarding claim 20, Hayami discloses the image processing apparatus according to claim 19, but fails to disclose wherein the operation performed on the photographic subject is use of a treatment tool, spraying of a liquid, or cleaning. In the same field of endeavor, Takahashi teaches an image processing apparatus comprising a processor configured to acquire an endoscopic image obtained by image capturing of a photographic subject using an endoscope, input the endoscopic image for image processing (image processing, such as focus control process of Takahashi [0073], analogous to applicant’s recognition process, is performed based on the operation information), set the image processing to be enabled or disabled on the basis of an operation performed on the photographic subject (focus control process is performed based on the operation information from the operation detection sensor, which detects whether discharge/irrigation operation or a tissue treatment operation is performed [0073-0074]), in a case where the image processing is set to be enabled, output information indicating that the image processing is enabled and the result of the image processing to a monitor (AF process/focus control process occurs when there is not treatment tool detected or discharge/irrigation operation [0077], the resulting image that has undergone AF process/focus control process is displayed on the monitor), and in a case where the image processing is set to be disabled, output information indicating that the image processing is disable to the monitor (when water/fluid is introduced to the operation area, focus control process/AF process is suspended [0059-0062, 0077]; when treatment tool is detected, AF process/focus control process also is suspended [0099-0101, 0077], AF process/focus control process is indicated as suspended on the monitor as the in-focus object distance is fixed). Takahashi further teaches that the operation performed on the photographic subject is use of a treatment tool, spraying of a liquid, or cleaning (focus control process is performed based on the operation information from the operation detection sensor, which detects whether discharge/irrigation operation or a tissue treatment operation is performed [0073-0074]). In view of Takahashi, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included wherein the operation type specifies the use of a treatment tool or spraying of a liquid, as taught by Takahasi, to the image processing of Hayami, as it is known in the endoscope art that a treatment tool or fluid from the discharge operation can cause image processing to not effectively function or cause the image to be difficult to observe, therefore requiring the image processing to be suspended [0077].
Regarding claim 21, Hayami, modified by Takahashi, discloses the image processing apparatus according to claim 20. Hayami further discloses wherein the operation performed on the photographic subject is identified from the endoscopic image (movement over an amount of time in the image is judged to determine whether the operator is differentiating a lesion portion [0055], which determined by the differentiation state judgement unit 32). Takahashi also teaches wherein the operation performed on the photographic subject is identified from the endoscopic image (treatment tool is detected [0099-0103]; detection of treatment tool based on image processing performed on captured image [0031]; treatment tool can be detected by luminance image [0115-0118]).
Regarding claim 22, Hayami discloses the image processing apparatus according to claim 13, but fails to disclose wherein the operation performed on the photographic subject is use of a treatment tool, spraying of a liquid, or cleaning. In the same field of endeavor, Takahashi teaches an image processing apparatus comprising a processor configured to acquire an endoscopic image obtained by image capturing of a photographic subject using an endoscope, input the endoscopic image for image processing (image processing, such as focus control process of Takahashi [0073], analogous to applicant’s recognition process, is performed based on the operation information), set the image processing to be enabled or disabled on the basis of an operation performed on the photographic subject (focus control process is performed based on the operation information from the operation detection sensor, which detects whether discharge/irrigation operation or a tissue treatment operation is performed [0073-0074]), in a case where the image processing is set to be enabled, output information indicating that the image processing is enabled and the result of the image processing to a monitor (AF process/focus control process occurs when there is not treatment tool detected or discharge/irrigation operation [0077], the resulting image that has undergone AF process/focus control process is displayed on the monitor), and in a case where the image processing is set to be disabled, output information indicating that the image processing is disable to the monitor (when water/fluid is introduced to the operation area, focus control process/AF process is suspended [0059-0062, 0077]; when treatment tool is detected, AF process/focus control process also is suspended [0099-0101, 0077], AF process/focus control process is indicated as suspended on the monitor as the in-focus object distance is fixed). Takahashi further teaches that the operation performed on the photographic subject is use of a treatment tool, spraying of a liquid, or cleaning (focus control process is performed based on the operation information from the operation detection sensor, which detects whether discharge/irrigation operation or a tissue treatment operation is performed [0073-0074]). In view of Takahashi, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included wherein the operation type specifies the use of a treatment tool or spraying of a liquid, as taught by Takahasi, to the image processing of Hayami, as it is known in the endoscope art that a treatment tool or fluid from the discharge operation can cause image processing to not effectively function or cause the image to be difficult to observe, therefore requiring the image processing to be suspended [0077].
Regarding claim 23, Hayami, modified by Takahashi, discloses the image processing apparatus according to claim 22, further teaching wherein the recognition process is set to be disabled in a case where the treatment tool is detected (Hayami teaches the recognition process being a form of image processing specifically for lesion detection through surface layer structure [0083-0084], shape [0142-0147] or size [0154-0156]; Takahashi teaches wherein the image processing is suspended when a treatment tool is detected [0077]).
Regarding claim 24, Hayami, modified by Takahashi, discloses the image processing apparatus according to claim 23. Takahashi teaches wherein the treatment tool is detected from the endoscopic image (treatment tool is detected [0099-0103]; detection of treatment tool based on image processing performed on captured image [0031]; treatment tool can be detected by luminance image [0115-0118]).
Regarding claim 26, Hayami, modified by Takahashi, discloses the image processing apparatus according to claim 22, further teaching wherein the recognition process is set to be enabled in a case where the treatment tool is not detected (Hayami teaches the recognition process being a form of image processing specifically for lesion detection through surface layer structure [0083-0084], shape [0142-0147] or size [0154-0156]; Takahashi teaches wherein the image processing is suspended when a treatment tool is detected [0077] and resumes when the treatment tool is removed [0078]).
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayami in view of Takahashi and Kamon (US2020/0143538)
Regarding claim 25, Hayami, modified by Takahashi, discloses the image processing apparatus according to claim 23, but fail to teach wherein the at least one processor is configured to: detect a plurality of types of treatment tools from the endoscopic image; and set the recognition process to be disabled in a case where a specific type of treatment tool is detected. In the same field of endeavor, Kamon teaches a medical imaging processing apparatus configured to detect a plurality of types of treatment tools from the endoscope image when a treatment tool is detected within the endoscope image (result from image analysis may include information regarding presence or absence of lesion, type, size or position, presence or absence of treatment tool and type of treatment tool, which may be displayed on the display screen illustrated in Fig. 5 [0068, 0071]). In view of Kamon, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included wherein the processor is configured to detect a plurality of types of treatment tool as taught by Kamon, to the processor of Hayami, modified by Takahashi, as it is known in the endoscope art that advancements in medical image processing and analysis comprise treatment tool detection and differentiation to organize images and help build a report summarizing the procedure [0004-0007].
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayami in view of Kamon.
Regarding claim 27, Hayami discloses the endoscope system, comprising: an image processing apparatus according to claim 13. Hayami further discloses an endoscope that captures an image of a photographic subject (endoscope 11 including image pickup device 18 captures object image by light incident from observation window [0040]), but fails to further describe the details of the connection between a processor device that controls the endoscope to generate an endoscopic image, wherein the image processing apparatus and the processor device are connected via a network. In the same field of endeavor, Kamon teaches a medical system comprising an endoscope (Fig. 28: medical system comprising a first examination apparatus 621, similar to endoscope apparatus 21 [0119]) comprising a processor device that control the endoscope to generate an endoscopic image (Fig. 26: endoscope apparatus 21, similar to apparatus 621, comprising processor device 33 comprising an image generation unit 36 [0069]), and an imaging processing apparatus, wherein the processor device and image processing apparatus are connected via a network (Fig. 28: medical image processing apparatus 10 is connected to first examination apparatus 621 via a network 626). In view of Kamon, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date before the claimed invention to have included the processor device and network of Kamon to the system of Hayami, as it is known in the endoscope art that endoscope system commonly comprises an endoscope, a processor device and a network to wirelessly connect the components.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LI-TING SONG whose telephone number is (571)272-5771. The examiner can normally be reached 8-5.
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.
/LI-TING SONG/Examiner, Art Unit 3795
/ANHTUAN T NGUYEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3795
08/22/26
Prosecution Insights