DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . It is responsive to the submission dated 01/24/2025. Claims 1-17 are presented for examination. Claims 1-3 are independent claims.
Information Disclosure Statement
2. The information disclosure statements (IDSs) submitted on 03/31/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and are being considered by the Examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
3. 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.
4. Claims 1-17 are 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.
The subject-matters of claims 1-17 are indefinite because the steps from the method claim refer to broadly written functional claimed language that only describes the function of the invention as opposed to how it is carried out.
Particularly, claims 1-3, as currently formulated, appear to provide a concatenation of block box experiments, of which only inputs and outputs are specified. The claimed steps merely define obscure parameters (e.g., visualized local intensity values) by virtue of vague relation to other unclear and undefined other parameters (e.g., offsetting local color channel values), as no details are provided describing how the respective parameters are determined and visualized in order to achieve the stated result.
Specifically, the subject-matters of claim 1 and also of claims 2- are indefinite because the steps in the claims provide no concrete functional or structural features explaining:
1. how the overlay image is generated and jointly visualizes the image signal components of the white light image and the spectral image;
2. how or what causes the local intensity values of the spectral image to be visualized;
3. how the grayscales or the true colors in the overlay image influence the visualization of the white light image;
4. how the complementary color channel value is reduced; and
5. what is causing the remaining color channel values to be maintained or increased; and
6. how the overlay function is used to calculate the respective ratio (of claim 3).
Additionally, the limitations of claims 1 and 2 render the claims indefinite because it is unclear as to what is being encompassed by the overlay image jointly visualizes image signal components of a white light image (2) (WLI) and image signal components of a spectral image. In particular, the phrase “jointly visualizes” is ambiguously vague; and the details of the make-up of the overlay image are lacking. therefore, fails to limit the claim.
Furthermore, it is unclear how, just by offsetting the local color channel values (R/G/B) of the white light image and associated local signal values (R/G/B or GW) of the spectral image with one another, the overlay image is generated, when the net difference between the local color channel values of the white light image and the associated local signal values of the spectral image being offset is unknown. Also, more details are required, as the origin of the white light image and the origin of the spectral image is indeterminate.
In addition, the limitation reciting “…associated local signal values (R/G/B or GW) of the spectral image (3a, 3b)” (in claims 1-2) renders the claims indefinite, because the meaning of “GW” is unclear, while sufficient antecedent basis for “the spectral image (3a, 3b)” is lacking; thus, resulting in an unclear scope of protection.
Moreover, the features of claim 1, including the limitation reciting “maintaining or increasing the remaining color channel values (R, G) of the white light image (2) are locally and selectively in direct or indirect dependence on the local intensity value I(x,y) of the spectral image” render the claim indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Likewise, it is unclear as to what the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention by the limitation reciting: “reducing the at least one complementary color channel value (B) of the white light image (2) more strongly depending on location a higher the resulting respective local intensity value I(x,y) of the spectral image.
Further, in claim 1, the term “more strongly” is a relative term that expresses a degree, and its meaning may change depending on context or the choice of the person elected to make such a determination to reduce the color value. As such, the limitation fails to limit the claim.
Therefore, since the limitations fail to limit the claim, the ordinary skill in the art would not be able to draw a clear boundary between what is and is not covered by the claims.
In claim 11, the limitations reciting: “… sensorially captured spatially separate…” and “sensorially captured chronologically separate….” are vague and unclear, therefore render the claim indefinite.
In claim 14, the limitations reciting: “…a value range (26) is … displayable at most….” and “… which already have exceeding of the displayable value range…” are vague and unclear, therefore render the claim indefinite.
In claim 15, the limitation reciting: “…at least one of no significant image brightness…” renders the claim unclear and indefinite.
The claims not specifically cited in this rejection are rejected as being dependent upon their rejected base claims.
Allowable Subject Matter
5. Claims 1 -17 have no art rejection but are rejected for indefiniteness reasons under 35 U.S.C. § 112. As the technical features of the wording of dependent claims 2-9 and 11-18 are indefinite for the reasons discussed above, the technical effect of the subject-matters of these claims is indeterminate and thus, they cannot be agreed upon a manner a problem is solved by each of these diverging claims. Thus, a reasonable search of the prior art by the examiner could not be thoroughly conducted.
Conclusion
6. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Yardibi et al. (US 20240289947) discloses a technique for endoscopic visualization with advanced overlay image frames including color image data and multispectral or fluorescence image data. A system includes an emitter comprising a plurality of electromagnetic sources and an image sensor comprising a pixel array that detects electromagnetic radiation and reads out a plurality of data frames. The system includes an image signal processor that receives the plurality of data frames read out by the image sensor, wherein the plurality of data frames comprises a color data frame and an advanced data frame. The image signal processor generates an advanced overlay data frame comprising the color data frame and a false color overlay generated based on the advanced data frame. The image signal processor adjusts a sensitivity of the advanced overlay data frame in real-time based on user input.
7. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WESNER SAJOUS whose telephone number is (571) 272-7791. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 10:00 TO 7:30 (ET).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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 or email the Examiner directly at wesner.sajous@uspto.gov.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Said Broome can be reached on 571-272-2931. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/WESNER SAJOUS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2612
WS
07/24/2026
Prosecution Insights