DETAILED ACTION
Summary
Claims 1-20 are pending in the application. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 USC 112(b). Claims 4 and 15 are rejected under 35 USC 112(d). Claims 18-19 are rejected under 35 USC 101.
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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
[0033] recites “(detection aera)”. It should recite “(detection area)”.
[0039] recites “second area AR1”. It should recite “second area AR2”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 7 and 17 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 7 recites “the treatment area” in line 4. It should recite “the treatment tool area”.
Claim 7 recites “the treatment area” in line 5. It should recite “the treatment tool area”.
Claim 17 recites “the treatment area” in line 4. It should recite “the treatment tool area”.
Claim 17 recites “the treatment area” in line 5. It should recite “the treatment tool area”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-20 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 1 recites “an observation image” in lines 8-9. It is not clear if this is referring to the observation image previously set forth, or if this is setting forth a new observation image. Clarification is required. For the purposes of examination, the former definition will be used.
Claim 4 recites “the one or more processors being configured to calculate representative luminance values of only the first area and the second area of the plural luminance areas”. However, Claim 1 requires that the system “calculate a representative luminance value of each of plural luminance areas”, and claim 2 specifies that the third area is one of the plural luminance areas. It is therefore not clear how the system can both calculate a representative luminance value of each area, and also only calculate a representative value of some of the areas. Clarification is required. For the purposes of examination, the system will only calculate representative luminance values of the first and second areas.
Claim 8 recites “execute the reducing when it is determined that the treatment tool has been captured in the observation image”. Claim 1 has the “calculate a weight” step require the reduced pixel count, and the adjusted brightness requiring the weight. It is therefore not clear whether the weight/adjusted brightness are calculated if the treatment tool is not detected. Clarification is required. For the purposes of examination, none of the steps which required the reduce number of pixels (i.e. the calculate the weight step and the adjust a brightness step) would occur if the treatment tool is not detected.
Claim 11 recites “a processing device” in line 6. It is not clear if this is referring to the processing device of claim 1, or if this is setting forth a new processing device. Clarification is required. For the purposes of examination, the former definition will be used.
Claim 11 recites “one or more processors comprising hardware” in lines 6-7. It is not clear if this is referring to the one or more processors comprising the hardware of claim 1, or if this is setting forth new processors and new hardware. Clarification is required. For the purposes of examination, the former definition will be used.
Claim 12 recites “an observation image” in line 6. It is not clear if this is referring to the observation image previously set forth, or if this is setting forth a new observation image. Clarification is required. For the purposes of examination, the former definition will be used.
Claim 15 recites “calculating representative luminance values of only the first area and the second area of the plural luminance areas”. However, Claim 12 requires that the system “calculate a representative luminance value of each of plural luminance areas”, and claim 13 specifies that the third area is one of the plural luminance areas. It is therefore not clear how the system can both calculate a representative luminance value of each area, and also only calculate a representative value of some of the areas. Clarification is required. For the purposes of examination, the system will only calculate representative luminance values of the first and second areas.
Claim 18 recites “executing the reducing when it is determined that the treatment tool has been captured in the observation image”. Claim 12 has the “calculating a weight” step require the reduced pixel count, and adjusting brightness requiring the weight. It is therefore not clear whether the weight/adjusted brightness are calculated if the treatment tool is not detected. Clarification is required. For the purposes of examination, none of the steps which require the reduced pixel (i.e. the weight calculation and adjusting the brightness) occur.
Claim 20 recites “an observation image” in line 8. It is not clear if this is referring to the observation image previously set forth, or if this is setting forth a new observation image. Clarification is required. For the purposes of examination, the former definition will be used.
All claims dependent from the above claims rejected under 35 USC 112(b) are also rejected, as the limitations of the dependent claims fail to cure the deficiencies identified above.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 4 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 4 requires “the one or more processors being configured to calculate representative luminance values of only the first area and the second area of the plural luminance areas”. However, Claim 1 requires that the system “calculate a representative luminance value of each of plural luminance areas”, and claim 2 specifies that the third area is one of the plural luminance areas. Claim 4 therefore fails to include all the limitations upon which it depends.
Claim 15 requires “calculating representative luminance values of only the first area and the second area of the plural luminance areas”. However, Claim 12 requires that the system “calculate a representative luminance value of each of plural luminance areas”, and claim 13 specifies that the third area is one of the plural luminance areas. Claim 15 therefore fails to include all the limitations upon which it depends.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 18-19 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) a mathematical concept and mental processes. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional limitations are insignificant pre-solution activities. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional limitations are generic computer components and an insignificant pre-solution activity.
Claim 18 recites an abstract idea without significantly more. The steps of “calculating a representative luminance value of each of plural luminance areas resulting from classification of a specific detection area in an observation image according to luminance values” and “counting detected pixels exceeding a specific luminance value from pixels in the detection area” are directed to mathematical concept type abstract idea, as the steps of “calculating” and “counting” are mathematical calculations. The steps of “determining a treatment tool area in the observation image”, and “determining whether or not a treatment tool has been captured in the observation image by performing image analysis of the observation image” are an abstract idea of a mental process. A user, looking at an image captured by an endoscope, can determine (i.e. think about) whether a treatment tool is in the image, and what the treatment tool area is in the image. The claim recites an abstract idea.
The claim is not integrated into a practical application. The step of “receiving an observation image captured by an endoscope” is directed to an insignificant pre-solution activity of gather data, and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The additional steps of “executing adjustment processing of reducing a counted number of the detected pixels in the treatment tool area from a counted number of the detected pixels of the pixels in the detection area, calculating a weight of each of the plural luminance areas based on the counted number of the detected pixels subjected to the reducing, and adjusting brightness of the observation image based on the weight and the representative luminance value of each of the plural luminance areas” and “executing the reducing when it is determined that the treatment tool has been captured in the observation image” are contingent limitations (MPEP 2111.04(II)) based on whether the treatment tool is in the captured image. As this is a method claim, the treatment tool need not be in the image, and the additional limitations need not occur. Therefore, the limitations cannot integrate the abstract idea in a practical application. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim is not significantly more than the judicial exception. The step of receiving the image is an insignificant pre-solution activity of gathering data, and does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As stated above, the other limitations are contingent limitations that need not occur by the broadest reasonable interpretation, and therefore cannot amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 19 recites an abstract idea without significantly more. The step of “determining whether or not the treatment tool has been captured in the observation image by pattern matching” is an abstract idea of a mental process. A user, looking at an image, can think about whether the portion of the image looks like the tool, and thereby determine the tool is in the image. The claim recites an abstract idea. The claim contains no additional limitations which either integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
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 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayashi (U.S Patent 7,029,437 B2) in view of Saito (EP 2422688 A1) and Yamauchi (U.S PGPub 2024/0172920 A1).
Regarding Claim 18, Kobayashi teaches a processing method (Abstract) comprising:
receiving an observation image captured by an endoscope (Col 5, lines 31-48),
calculating a representative luminance value (Fig. 2, S103) of each of plural luminance areas (Col 7, lines 29-43) resulting from classification of a specific detection area (Fig. 3, A1+A2) in an observation image according to luminance values (Col 6, lines 42-49),
determining a treatment tool area in the observation image (Col 10, lines 20-31),
executing adjustment processing of reducing a counted number of the detected pixels in the treatment tool area from a counted number of the detected pixels of the pixels in the detection area (this limitation is a contingent limitation, and by BRI need not occur) (MPEP 2111.04(II)),
calculating a weight of each of the plural luminance areas based on the counted number of the detected pixels subjected to the reducing (this limitation is a contingent limitation, and by BRI need not occur) (MPEP 2111.04(II)), and
adjusting brightness of the observation image based on the weight and the representative luminance value of each of the plural luminance areas (this limitation is a contingent limitation, and by BRI need not occur to read on the claim) (MPEP 2111.04(II));
determining whether or not a treatment tool has been captured in the observation image (Col 10, lines 12-19), and
executing the reducing when it is determined that the treatment tool has been captured in the observation image (this limitation is a contingent limitation, and by BRI need not occur) (MPEP 2111.04(II)).
Kobayashi fails to explicitly teach counting detected pixels exceeding a specific luminance value from pixels in the detection area.
Saito teaches a system for avoiding halation (Abstract). This system counts detected pixels which exceed a specific luminance value ([0037].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the combined system to count the number of pixels larger than a threshold value, as taught by Saito, because this allows the system to determine whether the image contains halation, and only display images without halation, thereby increasing the quality of the displayed image, as recognized by Sait [0010]-[0011]+[0037]-[0039].
The combination fails to explicitly teach performing image analysis of the observation image.
Yamauchi teaches an endoscopic system which obtains an image including a treatment tool (Abstract). This system performs image analysis of an observation image to detect a tool [0115].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to perform image analysis to detect the tool, as taught by Yamauchi, as the substitution for one known method of detecting a tool in an image with another yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. One of ordinary skill would have been able to carry out such a substitution, and the results of performing image analysis to detect the tool are reasonably predictable.
Regarding Claim 19, the combination of references teaches the invention substantially as claimed. Kobayashi fails to explicitly teach further comprising determining whether or not the treatment tool has been captured in the observation image by pattern matching.
Yamauchi teaches an endoscopic system which obtains an image including a treatment tool (Abstract). This system performs pattern matching on an observation image to detect a tool [0115].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to perform image analysis to detect the tool, as taught by Yamauchi, as the substitution for one known method of detecting a tool in an image with another yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. One of ordinary skill would have been able to carry out such a substitution, and the results of performing image analysis to detect the tool are reasonably predictable.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-17, and 20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 1 recites “determine a treatment tool area in the observation image, count detected pixels exceeding a specific luminance value from pixels in the detection area, reduce a counted number of the detected pixels in the treatment tool area from a counted number of the detected pixels of the pixels in the detection area, calculate a weight of each of the plural luminance areas based on the counted number of the detected pixels subjected to the reducing, and adjusting brightness of the observation image based on the weight and the representative luminance value of each of the plural luminance areas”. These limitations, in combination with the other limitations, are not taught by the prior art without the benefit of improper hindsight reasoning.
The closest piece of prior art is Kobayashi (U.S Patent 7,029,437 B2). This reference teaches an endoscopic system (Abstract), which calculates a luminance value of a plurality of luminance areas (Fig. 5, S201-S202) (Col 9, lines 27-33). This system further determines a treatment tool area (Fig. 9, KA) (Col 10, lines 20-39), and the system adjusts the brightness bases on the luminance areas (Col 10, lines 40-48). However, this system does not “count detected pixels exceeding a specific luminance value from pixels in the detection area, reduce a counted number of the detected pixels in the treatment tool area from a counted number of the detected pixels of the pixels in the detection area, calculate a weight of each of the plural luminance areas based on the counted number of the detected pixels subjected to the reducing”. Saito et al (EP2422688A1), teaches a method for adjusting brightness in an endoscopic system (Abstract). This system counts a number of pixels with a luminance value above a threshold value to determine is halation occurs [0037]. However, this system does not reduce a counted number, calculate a weight, or adjust the brightness as claimed. Takahashi et al. (JP2006034796) teaches a system for automatically adjusting a brightness of an image [0001]. This system weighs the brightness values of individual regions, and adjusts the brightness based on the weights [0007]. However, this system does not count pixels, reduce the count of pixels, and then determine the weight based on the reduced pixel count as claimed. Takahashi et al. (U.S Patent 6,545,703 B1) teaches using a ratio of pixels above a luminance threshold to the total number of pixels (Col 12, lines 25-44)+(Col 14, lines 39-54). However, this system does not reduce the count of pixels, and then determine the weight based on the reduced pixel count as claimed.
None of the other cited references teaches the invention as claimed. Therefore, claim 1 is non-obvious over the prior art, and would be allowable if amended to overcome the rejections under 35 UCS 112(b). Claims 12 and 20 recite similar limitations, and would be allowable if amended to overcome the rejections under 35 USC 112(b). Dependent claims 2-11, and 13-17, necessarily contain all the limitations of the independent claims, and would be allowable for substantially the same reasons.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Takahashi et al. (JP2006034796), which teaches a method for adjusting a brightness.
Takahashi et al. (U.S Patent 6,545,703 B1), which teaches obtaining a ratio of a count of pixels to determine halation.
Murakita (U.S Patent 11,523,729 B2), which teaches normalizing the luminance in an endoscopic image.
Ogasawara (U.S Patent 8,477,182 B2), which teaches a method of weighting different regions in an image.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEAN D MATTSON whose telephone number is (408)918-7613. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9 AM - 5 PM PST.
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, Pascal Bui-Pho can be reached at (571) 272-2714. 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.
/SEAN D MATTSON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3798
Prosecution Insights