DETAILED ACTION
This action is in reference to the communication filed on 23 JAN 2025.
Claims 1-10 are present and have been examined.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “image capture unit(s)” in claims 1, 5, 7, 10, and “process module” in claims 1, 2, 5.
For purposes of examination, in view of Figures 2, 3, 5, 6, and related text, as well as the discussion of a “wide angle lens” in [025, 030] the image capturing unit(s) are understood to be electronic cameras.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1, 2, 5, (and by extension of dependency claims 3, 4, 6-10) 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 limitation “processing module” in claims 1, 2, 5 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification does not provide any indication of any structure sufficient to carry out a processing nor any definition as to what the structure might even be. Examiner also does not find the presence of any sufficient structure or link to the function in the provided figures. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Per MPEP 2181 IV:
“When a claim containing a computer-implemented 35 U.S.C. 112(f) claim limitation is found to be indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for failure to disclose sufficient corresponding structure (e.g., the computer and the algorithm) in the specification that performs the entire claimed function, it will also lack written description under section 112(a).”
Claims 1, 2, 5 (and by extension of dependency, claims 3, 4, 6-10) rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
As described above, the disclosure does not provide adequate structure to perform the claimed function processing of data. The specification does not demonstrate that applicant has made an invention that achieves the claimed function because the invention is not described with sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-10 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. As explained below, the claim(s) are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step One: Is the Claim directed to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? YES
With respect to claim(s) 1-10 the independent claim(s) (claim 1) recite(s) a method, which is a statutory category of invention.
Step 2A – Prong One: Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon (product of nature) or an abstract idea? YES
With respect to claim(s) 1-10 the independent claim(s) (claims 1) is/are directed, in part, to:
A method of scanning medical instruments for reading a code of at least one medical instrument, wherein the code contains an instrument data corresponding to the at least one medical instrument;
the method of scanning medical instruments comprising:
capturing a first image of the at least one medical instrument
capturing a second image of the at least one medical instrument
These claim elements are considered to be abstract ideas because they are directed to a mental process, in that the claims ensconce concepts performed in the human mind including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion functions. “Capturing” an image, and reading code information from the image is a task that can be completed entirely in the mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a concept performed in the human mind, then it/they falls/ fall into the “mental processes” category.
Step 2A – Prong Two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? NO.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim(s) recite(s) additional element – “image capture units” as well as a “process module” to perform the claim steps. As noted in the Claim Interpretation section above, the image capture units are understood to be an electronic camera. In the interest of compact prosecution, Examiner interprets the process module to be a general purpose computer. The image capture unit(s) and/or computer is recited at a recited at a high level of generality and as such amount to no more than adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses the cameras/computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05f), or generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological field of use/computing environment (see MPEP 2106.05h). Examiner finds no improvement to the functioning of the computer or any other technology or technical field in the electronic camera and/or computer as claimed (see MPEP 2106.05a), nor any other application or use of the judicial exception in some meaningful way beyond a general like between the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (see MPEP 2106.05e).
Accordingly, this/these additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? NO.
The independent claim(s) is/are additionally directed to claim elements such as “image capture units” as well as a “process module” to perform the claim steps. As noted in the Claim Interpretation section above, the image capture units are understood to be an electronic camera. In the interest of compact prosecution, Examiner interprets the process module to be a general purpose computer. When considered individually, the identified claim elements only contribute generic recitations of technical elements to the claims. It is readily apparent, for example, that the claim is not directed to any specific improvements of these elements. Examiner notes that no disclosure of a “camera” or a “computer” per se are found in the specification. As such, this makes it clear that the invention is not directed to a technical improvement to either element. When the claims are considered individually and as a whole, the additional elements noted above, appear to merely apply the abstract concept to a technical environment in a very general sense – i.e. a generic computer receives information from another generic computer, processes the information and then sends information back. The most significant elements of the claims, that is the elements that really outline the inventive elements of the claims, are set forth in the elements identified as an abstract idea. The fact that the generic computing devices are facilitating the abstract concept is not enough to confer statutory subject matter eligibility.
As per dependent claims 2-10:
Dependent claims 2, 6-10 are not directed any additional abstract ideas and are also not directed to any additional non-abstract claim elements. Rather, these claims offer further descriptive limitations of elements found in the independent claims and addressed above – such as the types of information in the scanning codes, lists of instrument codes, and additional information about angles/light sources used in the claims. While these descriptive elements may provide further helpful context for the claimed invention these elements do not serve to confer subject matter eligibility to the invention since their individual and combined significance is still not heavier than the abstract concepts at the core of the claimed invention.
Dependent claims 3-5 are not directed to any additional abstract ideas, however they do recite non abstract elements of a display and a “file” (in the interest of compact prosecution) for storing information. These elements do not recite a practical application, as there is no indication of any improvement to their functioning and/or a related technology, and further, nothing beyond adding the words “apply it” to the claim to use the technology as a tool. Examiner notes that display information on a display is generally considered to be insignificant extra solution activity, as is storing information in a “file,” and as such these elements are insufficient to amount to significantly more.
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) 1-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lewis et al (US 20130336554A1, hereinafter Lewis) in view of Detwiler et al (US 20110073656 A1, hereinafter Detwiler).
In reference to claim 1:
Lewis teaches: A method of scanning medical instruments for reading a code of at least one medical instrument, wherein the code contains an instrument data corresponding to the at least one medical instrument (at least [0114-115] “As referred to herein, a "mark" on a surgical instrument can be understood to mean an identification "tag" or other mechanism added to a surgical instrument for the purposes of identifying that instrument. In some embodiments, the mark serves no surgical purpose and is solely added for identification purposes. Such marks may include, for example, a Radio Frequency ID ("RFID") tag, a barcode, an alphanumeric identifier, or other identifying features. In some embodiments, the mark may be generated by etching a pattern or other identifying feature onto the surgical instrument.“);
the method of scanning medical instruments comprising:
capturing a first image of the at least one medical instrument by an image capture unit (at least [0009, fig 4 and related text] “wherein the capture module comprises the image capture device, and wherein the image capture device comprises at least a first camera configured to capture a first image of the surgical instrument. “ “FIG. 4 is a schematic diagram of an exemplary System 400 for automatic identification of a Surgical Instrument 402, in accordance with an embodiment of the invention. Thus, System 400 may capture one or more images using the one or more Cameras 408…”);
capturing a second image of the at least one medical instrument by a lateral image capture unit, wherein the second image is different from the first image (at least [011] “ fifth embodiment according to the third or fourth embodiments, wherein the image capture device further comprises at least a second camera configured to capture a second image of the surgical instrument, wherein the first and second cameras are relatively positioned to capture respective first and second perspectives of the surgical instrument…” at [fig 4 and related text] ““FIG. 4 is a schematic diagram of an exemplary System 400 for automatic identification of a Surgical Instrument 402, in accordance with an embodiment of the invention. Thus, System 400 may capture one or more images using the one or more Cameras 408 and 410”) ; and
providing a process module to receive the first image and the second image, [to identify the at least one medical device] (at least [fig 4 and related text] System 400 may capture one or more images…and compare the images…” at [fig 1 and related text] comparison module 108 compares the images to attributes; “Returning again to FIG. 1 and System 100, Comparison Module 108 receives information from Capture Module 104 and Reference Database 106 and uses the information to determine a comparison score for the surgical instrument. In some embodiments, the Comparison Module 108 constructs a database query based on the attributes captured by the Capture Module 104…his may be achieved using one or more cameras and comparing the images to the reference database…The interior feature score may be determined by examining interior features of the instrument (position of nuts, bolts, hinges, grooves, logos, marks, etc.) from captured images.”). Lewis as cited teaches all the limitations above, and further teaches a bar code reader in conjunction with the camera itself. However, in the interest of compact prosecution, Examiner notes that Detwiler teaches:
reading the code of the at least one [element] from the first image and the second image (at least [fig 1 and related text] “…the processing module 128 operates to analyze data captured by one or both of the cameras 104A and 104B in order to construct data completely representing the light and dark spaces of a bar code. The processing module 128 employs the partial data construction module 132 to join data from rows of pixels partially transecting a bar code in order to form a line of data representing a complete transection of the bar code…he processing module 128 further employs the data validity check module 134. The data validity check module 134 examines pixels for a selected row to determine if more than a predetermined number of pixels are storing invalid data, such as gray resulting from an overlap of the pixel onto a dark and light space. If more than the predetermined number of pixels is found, the data validity check module 134 directs the processing module 128 to reject the row, and another row is selected and analyzed.”). Lewis and Detwiler are analogous references in that both disclose reading codes using camera/imaging technology. Detwiler specifically teaches the benefits of imaging bar code recognition: “With the increasing prevalence and capability of digital imaging techniques, imaging bar code scanning is gaining increasing interest as a mechanism for bar code scanning. Imaging scanning allows for significant simplification of scanner design and construction by avoiding complex laser and optical components used in conventional bar code scanners.” (see 002). Detwiler goes on to state specifically the benefits of dual camera usage: “. Positioning a bar code at a nonorthogonal angle to an imaging device to be used for image capture can provide for an effective magnification of the bar code. Therefore, one suitable configuration for an imaging scanner is to orient one or more cameras such that the rows of the imaging device of each camera are oriented at an angle other than a right angle to the scan window.” (see 006).
In reference to claim 2:
Lewis further teaches: providing an instrument list, wherein the instrument list comprises at least one code data (at least [0120] tools listed on a reference list, at [0114-0115] instrument identifiers/codes, see also figs 3a/3b and related text showing attributes);
the process module reads the instrument data from the code and compares the instrument data with the at least one code data to generate a comparison result (at least [0150, 088, fig 3a/3b and related text, 0101-0102, 0110-0112] export module determines a matching process to determine a threshold match score, the instruments may all be listed among a “kit” or tray and matched via the list/database).
In reference to claim 3:
Lewis further teaches: providing a display device to display the comparison result, wherein the comparison result comprises the at least one code data; when the instrument data matches the at least one code data, a mark is displayed at a location of the at least one code data that is matched (at least [fig 8 and related text] “Exporting 808 may comprise exporting the comparison score to a display for a user to review the results of the comparison. In some embodiments, Exporting 808 includes sending the results to an additional module for determining whether the comparison score exceeds a threshold value, as explained below with respect to FIG. 9.” – i.e. a display. In contrast at [0140] “When no comparison score exceeds the threshold, Process 900 then reports that no matches are made.“)
In reference to claim 4:
Lewis further teaches displaying, by the display device, the instrument data when the instrument data does not match the at least one code data (at least [0101] “the system may be configured to indicate that no match exists for any of the instruments stored in the reference databases. In this case, the system may offer the user the opportunity to add the instrument to the reference database.” And at [0111] “ An instrument with no match or multiple matches may be transferred to a manual intervention station where a user determines the identity of the instrument.” At [0102] “For example, the type of a surgical instrument may be identified--automatically or user intervention--to be a scalpel and System 100 may then begin by capturing the attribute that is highest on the scalpel hierarchy, for example, weight. In this way, the efficiency of identification may be improved. It should be noted that the scalpel and weight correspondence is given by example only, and a scalpel, or any other instrument, may have any hierarchy of attributes.” – if no automatic match exists, the user may select a category to be displayed).
In reference to claim 5:
Lewis further teaches: recording one of the at least one code data, which does not match the instrument data of the at least one medical instrument, as a scanning file (at least [0073] “In some embodiments, Capture Module 200 utilizes devices 202-212 in series until an identity of the surgical instrument is determined. For example, Capture Module 200 may first capture an image of the surgical instrument and, if the image is insufficient to identify the surgical instrument…If the surgical instrument is not yet identified, Capture Module 200 may continue utilizing additional sub-devices until the instrument is identified. Capture Module 200 may utilize the devices in any order.” – i.e. capture module 200 uses image capture devices 202 repeatedly) ;
capturing another first image of the at least one medical instrument by the image capture unit (at least [0009, fig 4 and related text] “wherein the capture module comprises the image capture device, and wherein the image capture device comprises at least a first camera configured to capture a first image of the surgical instrument. “ “FIG. 4 is a schematic diagram of an exemplary System 400 for automatic identification of a Surgical Instrument 402, in accordance with an embodiment of the invention. Thus, System 400 may capture one or more images using the one or more Cameras 408…”); capturing another second image of the at least one medical instrument by the lateral image capture unit, wherein the another second image is different from the another first image (at least [011] “ fifth embodiment according to the third or fourth embodiments, wherein the image capture device further comprises at least a second camera configured to capture a second image of the surgical instrument, wherein the first and second cameras are relatively positioned to capture respective first and second perspectives of the surgical instrument…” at [fig 4 and related text] ““FIG. 4 is a schematic diagram of an exemplary System 400 for automatic identification of a Surgical Instrument 402, in accordance with an embodiment of the invention. Thus, System 400 may capture one or more images using the one or more Cameras 408 and 410”); and
receiving, by the process module, both the another first image and the another second image [to identify the at least one medical instrument] from both the another first image and the another second image, and comparing by the process module the code data in the at least one code data that does not match the instrument data of the at least one medical instrument with the instrument corresponding to the code based on the scanning file (at least [fig 4 and related text] System 400 may capture one or more images…and compare the images…” at [fig 1 and related text] comparison module 108 compares the images to attributes; “Returning again to FIG. 1 and System 100, Comparison Module 108 receives information from Capture Module 104 and Reference Database 106 and uses the information to determine a comparison score for the surgical instrument. In some embodiments, the Comparison Module 108 constructs a database query based on the attributes captured by the Capture Module 104…his may be achieved using one or more cameras and comparing the images to the reference database…The interior feature score may be determined by examining interior features of the instrument (position of nuts, bolts, hinges, grooves, logos, marks, etc.) from captured images.” in [figs 4, 6, 7 and related text] if no match is detected, the “add new instrument” or “generate instrument identifier” options are available based on the “file” of the unrecognized instrument).
Lewis as cited teaches all the limitations above, and further teaches a bar code reader in conjunction with the camera itself. However, in the interest of compact prosecution, Examiner notes that Detwiler teaches:
reading the code of the at least one [element] from the first image and the second image (at least [fig 1 and related text] “…the processing module 128 operates to analyze data captured by one or both of the cameras 104A and 104B in order to construct data completely representing the light and dark spaces of a bar code. The processing module 128 employs the partial data construction module 132 to join data from rows of pixels partially transecting a bar code in order to form a line of data representing a complete transection of the bar code…The processing module 128 further employs the data validity check module 134. The data validity check module 134 examines pixels for a selected row to determine if more than a predetermined number of pixels are storing invalid data, such as gray resulting from an overlap of the pixel onto a dark and light space. If more than the predetermined number of pixels is found, the data validity check module 134 directs the processing module 128 to reject the row, and another row is selected and analyzed.”). The motivation to combine Detwiler and Lewis is similar with respect to the dual image/claim recognition as noted above with respect to claim 1, and as such the motivation to combine is incorporated herein.
In reference to claim 6:
Lewis further teaches: storing a plurality of instrument lists, wherein each of the instrument lists comprises a plurality of code data that are different from one another (at least [0110-1, 0149-0150] kits or tray lists are stored in the database with different instrument lists).
In reference to claim 7:
Lewis/Detwiler teaches all the limitations above. Lewis as cited teaches multiple cameras for the purpose of identifying/scanning medical equipment, but does not specifically disclose reference any reference axis. Detwiler further teaches: Further comprising providing a light source and a lateral light source, wherein a first reference axis and a second reference axis are defined (at least fig 1 and related text, including 014-016, 021] “ A bar code in its preferred orientation of presentation will be presented in either a horizontal or vertical orientation, so the camera 104A is oriented at an angle of +45.degree. from horizontal, and the camera 104B is oriented at an angle of -45.degree. from horizontal…The imaging device 108A also suitably includes a power and electronics control package 210. These elements may all reside on a single chip. When light strikes the imaging device 108A, charges accumulate in the cells of the array 202. In order to retrieve visual information from the array 202, charges are allowed or induced to migrate vertically to the horizontal register 204, and then to the bus 206. “);
an optical axis of the image capture unit and a light axis of the light source are parallel to the first reference axis; an optical axis of the lateral image capture unit and a light axis of the lateral light source are parallel to the second reference axis (at least [figs3a/b, 3c/d] “FIGS. 3A and 3B illustrate horizontally and vertically presented bar codes superimposed with data captured by the cameras 104A and 104B. More particularly, FIG. 3A illustrates a bar code 302 presented horizontally with respect to a scan window such as the scan window 102, and FIG. 3B illustrates a bar code 304 presented vertically with respect to the scan window. Lines 306A-306C of FIG. 3A illustrate rows of data captured by the camera 104A, with the imaging device 108A at an angle of +45.degree. with respect to the bar code 302, and lines 306D-306F of FIG. 3A illustrate rows of data captured by the camera 104B, with the imaging device 108B at an angle of -45.degree. with respect to the bar code 302. Lines 308A-308C of FIG. 3B illustrate rows of data captured by the camera 104A, with the imaging device 108A at an angle of +45.degree. with respect to the bar code 304, and lines 308D-308F of FIG. 3B illustrate rows of data captured by the camera 10413, with the imaging device 108B at an angle of -45.degree. with respect to the bar code 304. It can be seen that all of the rows of data captured by the imaging devices 108A and 108B transect all or parts of the bar codes 302 and 304, generating substantial bar code data, even though none of the rows of data are orthogonal to the bar codes 302 and 304, as the rows of data transect the bar codes diagonally. “);
the light source and the lateral light source respectively emit light along the first reference axis and the second reference axis and illuminate a surface of the at least one [item] (at least [figs 3a-3d as cited above, i.e. the item being photographed/imaged is receiving light source allowing the photo to be taken);
an angle is provided between the first reference axis and the second reference axis (at least [fig 3a/b and related text] “Lines 306A-306C of FIG. 3A illustrate rows of data captured by the camera 104A, with the imaging device 108A at an angle of +45.degree. with respect to the bar code 302, and lines 306D-306F of FIG. 3A illustrate rows of data captured by the camera 104B, with the imaging device 108B at an angle of -45.degree. with respect to the bar code 302. Lines 308A-308C of FIG. 3B illustrate rows of data captured by the camera 104A, with the imaging device 108A at an angle of +45.degree. with respect to the bar code 304, and lines 308D-308F of FIG. 3B illustrate rows of data captured by the camera 10413, with the imaging device 108B at an angle of -45.degree. with respect to the bar code 304.”). Lewis and Detwiler are analogous in their use of camera/optics to recognized saved codes. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that as contemplated by Detwiler, a light source is required/inherent for a successful imaging process, i.e. a traditional or disposable camera even is outfitted with a flash. Further Examiner notes that even a traditional barcode reader requires a light source in order for the scan to occur. As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would consider the need for a light source, even simply daylight, in order to create successful images as taught by Detwiler.
In reference to claim 8:
Detwiler further teaches wherein the angle is greater than 0 degree and is less than or equal to 60 degrees (at least [020, 024-025, 037] “Advantageous orientations that may be used include +45.degree. or -45.degree. if a single camera is used, or if two cameras are used, +45.degree. for one camera and -45.degree. for the other camera. While in the examples discussed, one or two cameras are employed, it will be recognized that additional cameras may be used if such an addition is cost effective.”). The motivation to combine Detwiler and Lewis is similar with respect to claim 7 above, and as such the motivation to combine is incorporated herein.
In reference to claim 9:
Detwiler further teaches: wherein the angle is greater than or equal to 15 degrees and is less than or equal to 45 degrees (at least [020, 024-025, 037] “Advantageous orientations that may be used include +45.degree. or -45.degree. if a single camera is used, or if two cameras are used, +45.degree. for one camera and -45.degree. for the other camera. While in the examples discussed, one or two cameras are employed, it will be recognized that additional cameras may be used if such an addition is cost effective.”). The motivation to combine Detwiler and Lewis is similar with respect to claim 7 above, and as such the motivation to combine is incorporated herein.
In reference to claim 10:
Detwiler further teaches: Wherein a first distance is provided between the light source and the image capture unit, and a second distance is provided between the lateral light source and the lateral image capture unit (at least [017, 034-037] “ The camera control module 126 employs a rangefinding and focusing module 129, used to determine the distance from one or both of the cameras 104A and 104B to a bar code and to focus one or both of the lenses 106A and 106B based on the distance determination.” – distance from the camera is the distance of the light source). The motivation to combine Detwiler and Lewis is similar with respect to claim 7 above, and as such the motivation to combine is incorporated herein.
Relevant Prior Art
Kumar et al, US 2021/0236227 discloses tracking medical instruments/devices during a procedure.
Gloger et al, US 2013/0091679, discloses creating sets of instruments based on identifiers, using multiple cameras and optical tools.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATHERINE KOLOSOWSKI-GAGER whose telephone number is (571)270-5920. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday.
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, Mamon Obeid can be reached at 571-270-1813. 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.
/KATHERINE . KOLOSOWSKI-GAGER/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3687
/KATHERINE KOLOSOWSKI-GAGER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3687