DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Invention II, drawn to an apparatus of Claims 12-20 in the reply filed on 08/12/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the examiner could examine all of the claims of Inventions I and II without serious burden.
This is not found persuasive because although Inventions I and II have similar limitations, Inventions I and Il are related as method and product for its practice. The inventions are distinct if it can be shown that either: (1) the method as claimed can be practiced by another and materially different product or by hand, or (2) the product as claimed can be used to practice another and materially different method. (MPEP § 806.05(e)). In the instant case, the method as claimed can be practiced by another and materially different product, such as without a camera control unit in communication with a light source or without suppressing the activation of the light source in response to the detection of the interference object in the undeployed state.
(Examiner's Note: The restriction, filed 08/12/2026 further contained the sentence “In the instant case, the product as claimed can be used to practice another and materially different method, such as without the entering of one or more VOC's into a slit of a device”. This sentence was not intended to be part of the previous restriction and is not relevant to the current application. The sentence “In the instant case, the method as claimed can be practiced by another and materially different product, such as without a camera control unit in communication with a light source or without suppressing the activation of the light source in response to the detection of the interference object in the undeployed state”, was also included in the previous restriction and remains relevant to the current application. Additionally, as previously indicated, “inventions are distinct if it can be shown that either: (1) the method as claimed can be practiced by another and materially different product or by hand, or (2) the product as claimed can be used to practice another and materially different method. (MPEP § 806.05(e)).”)
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 1-11 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 08/12/2026.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
Claims 12-20 are currently under examination.
Claim Objections
Claim 18 objected to because of the following informalities:
In Claim 18, “, wraps” (last line), should read either -, and wraps- or -,or wraps- (Examiner's Note: Insertion of the word “and” or “or”, as “wraps” is the final item in the list)
Appropriate correction is required.
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:
Claim 12: The claim limitation “control unit is configured to: detect one or more features or characteristics present in the plurality of images over time; evaluate the one or more features to detect an interference object within an interference proximity” has been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses a generic placeholder “control unit” coupled with functional language “detect one or more features or characteristics present in the plurality of images over time; evaluate the one or more features to detect an interference object within an interference proximity” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier that has a known structural meaning before the phrase “control unit”.
Claim 12: The claim limitation “camera control unit is further configured to: distinguish the interference object from other objects not presenting interaction hazards with an operation of the light source” has been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses a generic placeholder “control unit” coupled with functional language “distinguish the interference object from other objects not presenting interaction hazards with an operation of the light source” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier that has a known structural meaning before the phrase “control unit”.
Claim 20: The claim limitation “control unit is configured to: detect one or more features or characteristics present in the plurality of images over time; in response to the one or more features or characteristics, identify an operating state of the surgical scope in a deployed state wherein the scope is within a patient cavity and alternatively in an undeployed state wherein the scope is outside the patient cavity; evaluate the one or more features to detect an interference object within an interference proximity” has been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses a generic placeholder “control unit” coupled with functional language “detect one or more features or characteristics present in the plurality of images over time; in response to the one or more features or characteristics, identify an operating state of the surgical scope in a deployed state wherein the scope is within a patient cavity and alternatively in an undeployed state wherein the scope is outside the patient cavity; evaluate the one or more features to detect an interference object within an interference proximity” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier that has a known structural meaning before the phrase “control unit”.
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.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation:
A controller with a detection model, or equivalents thereof, as described in Par. 17, 19, and 20 of the disclosure filed on 02/06/2025, which lacks sufficient detail in regards to the structure of the detection model. (Claim 12)
A controller with a detection model, or equivalents thereof, as described in Par. 17, 19, and 20 of the disclosure filed on 02/06/2025, which lacks sufficient detail in regards to the structure of the detection model. (Claim 13)
A controller with a detection model, or equivalents thereof, as described in Par. 17, 19, and 20 of the disclosure filed on 02/06/2025, which lacks sufficient detail in regards to the structure of the detection model. (Claim 20)
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 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.
Claims 12-20 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.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “control unit is configured to: detect one or more features or characteristics present in the plurality of images over time; evaluate the one or more features to detect an interference object within an interference proximity”, where the applicant’s specification lacks sufficient detail in regards to the structure of the algorithm that performs the indicated functions. The applicant’s specification does state “the detection models may include a position detection model 70 and an interference detection model 72. Each of the detection models 70, 72 may be applied by the control logic 64 of the controller 52 to determine the operating state of the surgical scope 10…” (Par. 19 of applicant’s spec.), “Once the representative images 82, 84, 86, are accurately labeled, they may be supplied to an untrained Al image processing model 90 to train and/or optimize the position detection model 70. The resulting position detection model 70 may be configured and trained to accurately distinguish whether the scope 10 is implemented in the undeployed state 36, deployed state 38, or other unknown states that may be tracked to disable one or more automated algorithms or controls or” (Par. 20 of applicant’s spec.), “the image processing model 90 may correspond to a neural network that may be trained to recognize patterns in the images 54 representative of each of the states or operating conditions” (Par. 23 of applicant’s specification). However, simply broadly identifying a type of model and providing an overview of the training does not amount to sufficient detail. For example, the applicant’s specification lacks sufficient detail in regards to the weights, biases, or layers of the model itself. As such, the claim is rejected.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “camera control unit is further configured to: distinguish the interference object from other objects not presenting interaction hazards with an operation of the light source”, where the applicant’s specification lacks sufficient detail in regards to the structure of the algorithm that performs the indicated functions. The applicant’s specification does state “the detection models may include a position detection model 70 and an interference detection model 72. Each of the detection models 70, 72 may be applied by the control logic 64 of the controller 52 to determine the operating state of the surgical scope 10…” (Par. 19 of applicant’s spec.), “Once the representative images 82, 84, 86, are accurately labeled, they may be supplied to an untrained Al image processing model 90 to train and/or optimize the position detection model 70. The resulting position detection model 70 may be configured and trained to accurately distinguish whether the scope 10 is implemented in the undeployed state 36, deployed state 38, or other unknown states that may be tracked to disable one or more automated algorithms or controls or” (Par. 20 of applicant’s spec.), “the image processing model 90 may correspond to a neural network that may be trained to recognize patterns in the images 54 representative of each of the states or operating conditions” (Par. 23 of applicant’s specification). However, simply broadly identifying a type of model and providing an overview of the training does not amount to sufficient detail. For example, the applicant’s specification lacks sufficient detail in regards to the weights, biases, or layers of the model itself. As such, the claim is rejected.
Claim 20 recites the limitation “control unit is configured to: detect one or more features or characteristics present in the plurality of images over time; in response to the one or more features or characteristics, identify an operating state of the surgical scope in a deployed state wherein the scope is within a patient cavity and alternatively in an undeployed state wherein the scope is outside the patient cavity; evaluate the one or more features to detect an interference object within an interference proximity”, where the applicant’s specification lacks sufficient detail in regards to the structure of the algorithm that performs the indicated functions. The applicant’s specification does state “the detection models may include a position detection model 70 and an interference detection model 72. Each of the detection models 70, 72 may be applied by the control logic 64 of the controller 52 to determine the operating state of the surgical scope 10…” (Par. 19 of applicant’s spec.), “Once the representative images 82, 84, 86, are accurately labeled, they may be supplied to an untrained Al image processing model 90 to train and/or optimize the position detection model 70. The resulting position detection model 70 may be configured and trained to accurately distinguish whether the scope 10 is implemented in the undeployed state 36, deployed state 38, or other unknown states that may be tracked to disable one or more automated algorithms or controls or” (Par. 20 of applicant’s spec.), “the image processing model 90 may correspond to a neural network that may be trained to recognize patterns in the images 54 representative of each of the states or operating conditions” (Par. 23 of applicant’s specification). However, simply broadly identifying a type of model and providing an overview of the training does not amount to sufficient detail. For example, the applicant’s specification lacks sufficient detail in regards to the weights, biases, or layers of the model itself. As such, the claim is rejected.
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 12-20 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.
Claims 12 and 20 recite the limitation “the control unit” in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, this will be interpreted as “the camera control unit”.
Claims 12 and 20 recite the phrase “interference object”, which fails to effectively define the metes and bounds of the claim as it is unclear as to what the applicant considers to be an interference object. The applicant’s specification states “Examples of interference objects may include a drape, paper or cloth products, bandages, gauze, wraps, biological tissue, or other objects ill-suited to exposure to elevated temperatures” (Par. 5 of applicant’s spec.) and “interference objects 48 may include at least one of a drape 50, biological tissue, paper or cloth products, gauze, wraps, etc.” (Par. 16 of applicant’s spec.), however, it is unclear as to what objects are further included as “other objects ill-suited to exposure to elevated temperatures” and “etc.”, when biological tissue is presented within the same sentence as paper products. As such, the claim is indefinite as the applicant has failed to effectively define the metes and bounds of the claim. For examination purposes, this will be interpreted as the presence of any type of object. Claims 13-17 and 19 are dependent on claim 12, and as such are also rejected.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “distinguish the interference object from other objects not presenting interaction hazards with an operation of the light source”, which fails to effectively define the metes and bounds of the claim as it is unclear as to what the applicant considers to be “objects not presenting interaction hazards with an operation of the light source”. What objects do not present hazards? The applicant’s specification merely states “the camera control unit is further configured to distinguish the interference object from other objects not presenting interaction hazards with an operation of the light source” (Par. 37 of applicant’s spec.). However, a term cannot be defined by itself. Additionally, the interference objects are identified as “interference objects 48 may include at least one of a drape 50, biological tissue, paper or cloth products, gauze, wraps, etc.” (Par. 16 of applicant’s spec.), which includes biological tissue as a hazard. As such, the claim is indefinite as the applicant has failed to effectively define the metes and bounds of the claim. For examination purposes, this will be interpreted as the presence of any type of object.
Claim 17 recites the limitation “wherein the interference object comprises an extrinsic object that negatively interacts with heat radiating from a light source of the surgical scope”, which fails to effectively define the metes and bounds of the claim as it is unclear as to what the applicant considers to be “an extrinsic object that negatively interacts with heat radiating from a light source of the surgical scop”. What is the object extrinsic to? The applicant’s specification states “Examples of interference objects may include a drape, paper or cloth products, bandages, gauze, wraps, biological tissue, or other objects ill-suited to exposure to elevated temperatures” (Par. 5 of applicant’s spec.) and “interference objects 48 may include at least one of a drape 50, biological tissue, paper or cloth products, gauze, wraps, etc.” (Par. 16 of applicant’s spec.), however, it is unclear as to what objects are further included as “other objects ill-suited to exposure to elevated temperatures” and “etc.”, when biological tissue is presented within the same sentence as paper products. What is the object extrinsic to? As such, the claim is indefinite as the applicant has failed to effectively define the metes and bounds of the claim. For examination purposes, this will be interpreted as the presence of any type of object.
Claim 12 limitation “control unit is configured to: detect one or more features or characteristics present in the plurality of images over time; evaluate the one or more features to detect an interference object within an interference proximity” 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 applicant has failed to effectively define the metes and bounds of the claim as it is unclear as to the structure of the model performing the indicated function. The corresponding structure within the specification is identified as “the detection models may include a position detection model 70 and an interference detection model 72. Each of the detection models 70, 72 may be applied by the control logic 64 of the controller 52 to determine the operating state of the surgical scope 10…” (Par. 19 of applicant’s spec.), “Once the representative images 82, 84, 86, are accurately labeled, they may be supplied to an untrained Al image processing model 90 to train and/or optimize the position detection model 70. The resulting position detection model 70 may be configured and trained to accurately distinguish whether the scope 10 is implemented in the undeployed state 36, deployed state 38, or other unknown states that may be tracked to disable one or more automated algorithms or controls or” (Par. 20 of applicant’s spec.), “the image processing model 90 may correspond to a neural network that may be trained to recognize patterns in the images 54 representative of each of the states or operating conditions” (Par. 23 of applicant’s specification). However, simply broadly identifying a type of model and providing an overview of the training does not amount to sufficient detail. For example, the applicant’s specification lacks sufficient detail in regards to the weights, biases, or layers of the model itself. As such, the claim is indefinite as the applicant has failed to effectively define the metes and bounds of the claim. 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. Claims 13-19 are dependent on claim 12 and as such are also rejected.
Claim 13 limitation “camera control unit is further configured to: distinguish the interference object from other objects not presenting interaction hazards with an operation of the light source” 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 applicant has failed to effectively define the metes and bounds of the claim as it is unclear as to the structure of the model performing the indicated function. The corresponding structure within the specification is identified as “the detection models may include a position detection model 70 and an interference detection model 72. Each of the detection models 70, 72 may be applied by the control logic 64 of the controller 52 to determine the operating state of the surgical scope 10…” (Par. 19 of applicant’s spec.), “Once the representative images 82, 84, 86, are accurately labeled, they may be supplied to an untrained Al image processing model 90 to train and/or optimize the position detection model 70. The resulting position detection model 70 may be configured and trained to accurately distinguish whether the scope 10 is implemented in the undeployed state 36, deployed state 38, or other unknown states that may be tracked to disable one or more automated algorithms or controls or” (Par. 20 of applicant’s spec.), “the image processing model 90 may correspond to a neural network that may be trained to recognize patterns in the images 54 representative of each of the states or operating conditions” (Par. 23 of applicant’s specification). However, simply broadly identifying a type of model and providing an overview of the training does not amount to sufficient detail. For example, the applicant’s specification lacks sufficient detail in regards to the weights, biases, or layers of the model itself. As such, the claim is indefinite as the applicant has failed to effectively define the metes and bounds of the claim. 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.
Claim 20 limitation “control unit is configured to: detect one or more features or characteristics present in the plurality of images over time; in response to the one or more features or characteristics, identify an operating state of the surgical scope in a deployed state wherein the scope is within a patient cavity and alternatively in an undeployed state wherein the scope is outside the patient cavity; evaluate the one or more features to detect an interference object within an interference proximity” 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 applicant has failed to effectively define the metes and bounds of the claim as it is unclear as to the structure of the model performing the indicated function. The corresponding structure within the specification is identified as “the detection models may include a position detection model 70 and an interference detection model 72. Each of the detection models 70, 72 may be applied by the control logic 64 of the controller 52 to determine the operating state of the surgical scope 10…” (Par. 19 of applicant’s spec.), “Once the representative images 82, 84, 86, are accurately labeled, they may be supplied to an untrained Al image processing model 90 to train and/or optimize the position detection model 70. The resulting position detection model 70 may be configured and trained to accurately distinguish whether the scope 10 is implemented in the undeployed state 36, deployed state 38, or other unknown states that may be tracked to disable one or more automated algorithms or controls or” (Par. 20 of applicant’s spec.), “the image processing model 90 may correspond to a neural network that may be trained to recognize patterns in the images 54 representative of each of the states or operating conditions” (Par. 23 of applicant’s specification). However, simply broadly identifying a type of model and providing an overview of the training does not amount to sufficient detail. For example, the applicant’s specification lacks sufficient detail in regards to the weights, biases, or layers of the model itself. As such, the claim is indefinite as the applicant has failed to effectively define the metes and bounds of the claim. 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 claims are generally directed towards a control system configured to illuminate a field of view of a surgical scope comprising: a camera control unit in communication with a light source that receives a plurality of images, wherein the camera control unit detects one or more features in the images, evaluates those features to determine the presence of an interference object, and suppresses activation of the light source in response to the detection of the interference object.
Claim(s) 12-14 and 16-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Venkataraman (US Pub. No. 20210015342) hereinafter Venkataraman.
Regarding claim 12, Venkataraman discloses A control system configured to control a light source configured to illuminate a field of view of a surgical scope (Par. 33, on/off subsystem – 110 with processing module – 112 “endoscope system 100 includes an endoscope camera module 102, a light source unit 104, and a proposed automatic light-source on/off control subsystem 110 (or “light-source control subsystem 110” hereinafter)....”) (Examiner's Note: Interpreted as comprising a light source and processor) (Par. 68, (embodiments usable together)), the control system comprising:
a camera control unit (Par. 33-34, “Proposed light-source on/off control subsystem 110 can include one or more video-image processing modules including video-image processing modules 112 and 114…” “…Video-image processing module 112 is configured to generate a “POWER-OFF” signal 130-1 for turning off light source 106…” (subsystem 110 with module 112)),
wherein the camera control unit receives an image feed comprising a plurality of images (Par. 33, “Light-source control subsystem 110 is coupled to an output of endoscope camera module 102 and configured to receive real-time surgical procedure videos and/or still images (collectively referred to as “surgical video images 120” hereinafter) during a live surgical procedure….”) and is in communication with the light source (Par. 33, “Light-source control subsystem 110 is also coupled to an input of light source module 104 and configured to generate and output automatic light source on/off control signals 130 (or “light-source control signals 130” hereinafter) during a live surgical procedure.”)(Par. 34, “Video-image processing module 112 is configured to generate a “POWER-OFF” signal 130-1 for turning off light source 106 in light source module 104 when the first transitional event is detected”), wherein the control unit is configured to:
detect one or more features or characteristics present in the plurality of images over time (Par. 48, Fig. 2, “process 200 analyzes a sequence of newly received video images to determine whether the endoscope camera module is inside the patient's body or outside of the patient's body (step 204)…”)(Par. 49 (transitional event detection));
evaluate the one or more features to detect an interference object within an interference proximity (Par. 50, “when the endoscope camera module is outside of the patient's body with the light source turned off, process 200 analyzes a real-time video image to determine whether the endoscope camera module is pointed at a white balancing object (step 208).” (white object detection)); and
in response to the detection of the interference object (Fig. 2, steps 208, 210, 212)(Par. 50-51 (steps 208, 210, and 212 in response to the white object detection)), suppress the activation of the light source (Par. 51, “Next, when the endoscope camera module is outside of the patient's body with the light source turned on, process 200 continues to analyze real-time video images to determine whether the white balancing operation is completed (step 212). If not, process 200 can return to step 212 and continue to look for the cue indicating the ending of the white balancing operation. Otherwise, the white balancing operation is completed and process 200 generates yet another control signal for turning off the light source (step 214).”).
Venkataraman fails to explicitly disclose a camera control unit comprising a memory.
However, Venkataraman does teach computer implementation of the methods(Par. 46 (computer implementation of the software)) (Par. 58-61 (processing units with memory)) (Par. 62, “various processes described in this patent disclosure, including the above-described processes of automatically turning on/off a light source of an endoscope camera module during a surgical procedure and training the disclosed statistical classifier for classifying surgical video images as being either inside or outside of a patient's body in conjunction with FIGS. 1-3, are stored in system memory 504, permanent storage device 508, and/or ROM 510. From these various memory units, processing unit(s) 512 retrieve instructions to execute and data to process in order to execute the processes of some implementations.”)) (Par. 68 (combining embodiments)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Venkataraman with an alternate embodiments of Venkataraman to include a camera control unit comprising a memory through the combination of embodiments as it would have yielded the predictable result of providing the exact computational structures needed for the system.
Regarding claim 13, modified Venkataraman further discloses wherein the camera control unit is further configured to: distinguish the interference object from other objects not presenting interaction hazards with an operation of the light source (Par. 50, “process 200 analyzes a real-time video image to determine whether the endoscope camera module is pointed at a white balancing object (step 208). For example, process 200 can analyze the video image to identify a predefined white balancing object within the video image”).
Regarding claim 14, modified Venkataraman further discloses wherein the camera control unit is further configured to:
in response to the one or more features or characteristics (Par. 48-49, Fig. 2, step 204), identify an operating state of the surgical scope in a deployed state wherein the scope is within a patient cavity (Par. 48-49, Fig. 2, (“Yes” on the flow chart and return to step 202)) and alternatively in an undeployed state wherein the scope is outside the patient cavity (Par. 48-49, Fig. 2, (“no” on the flow chart and advancement to step 206)).
Regarding claim 16, modified Venkataraman further discloses wherein the camera control unit is further configured to:
in response to the operating state identified as the deployed state, suppress the identification of the interference object identified responsive to the one or more features or characteristics (Fig. 2, Par. 49-51 ((identification of white balancing only occurs in the undeployed state)).
Regarding claim 17, modified Venkataraman further discloses wherein the interference object comprises an extrinsic object that negatively interacts with heat radiating from a light source of the surgical scope (Par. 18, “the white balancing object can include: a white balancing card, a white sponge, a whiteboard, a piece of white paper, a piece of white cloth, and any other suitable white medium”).
Regarding claim 18, modified Venkataraman further discloses wherein the interference object comprises at least one of a drape, biological tissue, paper or cloth products, gauze, wraps (Par. 18, “the white balancing object can include: a white balancing card, a white sponge, a whiteboard, a piece of white paper, a piece of white cloth, and any other suitable white medium”).
Regarding claim 19, modified Venkataraman further discloses wherein the control system comprises the surgical scope and the surgical scope is an endoscope comprising an elongated insertion tube that is selectively deployed in the patient cavity (Fig. 1, Par. 33, “Endoscope camera module 102 is typically the rod-like or tube-like structure that contains the physical imaging component such as a CCD camera, the optic lenses, and connections such as optic fiber for the light source” (endoscope system – 100)).
Regarding claim 20, Venkataraman discloses A control system configured to control a light source configured to illuminate a field of view of a surgical scope (Par. 33, on/off subsystem – 110 with processing module – 112 “endoscope system 100 includes an endoscope camera module 102, a light source unit 104, and a proposed automatic light-source on/off control subsystem 110 (or “light-source control subsystem 110” hereinafter)....”) (Examiner's Note: Interpreted as comprising a light source and processor) (Par. 68, (embodiments usable together)), the control system comprising:
a camera control unit (Par. 33-34, “Proposed light-source on/off control subsystem 110 can include one or more video-image processing modules including video-image processing modules 112 and 114…” “…Video-image processing module 112 is configured to generate a “POWER-OFF” signal 130-1 for turning off light source 106…” (subsystem 110 with module 112)) wherein the camera control unit receives an image feed comprising a plurality of images (Par. 33, “Light-source control subsystem 110 is coupled to an output of endoscope camera module 102 and configured to receive real-time surgical procedure videos and/or still images (collectively referred to as “surgical video images 120” hereinafter) during a live surgical procedure….”) and is in communication with the light source (Par. 33, “Light-source control subsystem 110 is also coupled to an input of light source module 104 and configured to generate and output automatic light source on/off control signals 130 (or “light-source control signals 130” hereinafter) during a live surgical procedure.”)(Par. 34, “Video-image processing module 112 is configured to generate a “POWER-OFF” signal 130-1 for turning off light source 106 in light source module 104 when the first transitional event is detected”), wherein the control unit is configured to:
detect one or more features or characteristics present in the plurality of images over time (Par. 48, Fig. 2, “process 200 analyzes a sequence of newly received video images to determine whether the endoscope camera module is inside the patient's body or outside of the patient's body (step 204)…”)(Par. 49 (transitional event detection));
in response to the one or more features or characteristics (Par. 48-49, Fig. 2, step 204), identify an operating state of the surgical scope in a deployed state wherein the scope is within a patient cavity (Par. 48-49, Fig. 2, (“Yes” on the flow chart and return to step 202)) and alternatively in an undeployed state wherein the scope is outside the patient cavity (Par. 48-49, Fig. 2, (“no” on the flow chart and advancement to step 206));
evaluate the one or more features to detect an interference object within an interference proximity (Par. 50, “when the endoscope camera module is outside of the patient's body with the light source turned off, process 200 analyzes a real-time video image to determine whether the endoscope camera module is pointed at a white balancing object (step 208).” (white object detection));
in response to the operating state identified as the deployed state (Fig. 2, Par. 48-51 ((identification of white balancing only occurs in the undeployed state)), suppress the identification of the interference object identified responsive to the one or more features or characteristics (Fig. 2, Par. 49-51 ((identification of white balancing only occurs in the undeployed state)); and
in response to the detection of the interference object in the undeployed state (Fig. 2, steps 208, 210, 212)(Par. 50-51 (steps 208, 210, and 212 in response to the white object detection)), suppress the activation of the light source (Par. 51, “Next, when the endoscope camera module is outside of the patient's body with the light source turned on, process 200 continues to analyze real-time video images to determine whether the white balancing operation is completed (step 212). If not, process 200 can return to step 212 and continue to look for the cue indicating the ending of the white balancing operation. Otherwise, the white balancing operation is completed and process 200 generates yet another control signal for turning off the light source (step 214).”).
Venkataraman fails to explicitly disclose a camera control unit comprising a memory.
However, Venkataraman does teach computer implementation of the methods(Par. 46 (computer implementation of the software)) (Par. 58-61 (processing units with memory)) (Par. 62, “various processes described in this patent disclosure, including the above-described processes of automatically turning on/off a light source of an endoscope camera module during a surgical procedure and training the disclosed statistical classifier for classifying surgical video images as being either inside or outside of a patient's body in conjunction with FIGS. 1-3, are stored in system memory 504, permanent storage device 508, and/or ROM 510. From these various memory units, processing unit(s) 512 retrieve instructions to execute and data to process in order to execute the processes of some implementations.”)) (Par. 68 (combining embodiments)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Venkataraman with an alternate embodiments of Venkataraman to include a camera control unit comprising a memory through the combination of embodiments as it would have yielded the predictable result of providing the exact computational structures needed for the system.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Venkataraman as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Takami (US Pat. No. 4963960) hereinafter Takamai.
Modified Venkataraman teaches the system of claim 14 above.
Regarding claim 15, modified Venkataraman further fails to explicitly disclose the limitations of the claim.
However, Venkataraman does disclose wherein the camera control unit is further configured to:
in response to identifying the scope in the undeployed state (Venkataraman (Par. 48-49, Fig. 2, (“no” on the flow chart and advancement to step 206)).
Takami teaches in response to identifying the scope in the undeployed state (Col. 5, lines 50-57 (interrupted examination)), monitoring a lapsed time of the undeployed state (Col. 5, lines 50-57 (interrupted examination for a determined amount of time)), and in response to the lapsed time exceeding a predetermined time (Col. 5, lines 50-57 (in response to the interruption for a predetermined duration)), deactivating a light source of the surgical scope (Col. 5, lines 50-62, (light source turned off in response to the interruption for a predetermined duration.”).
Venkataraman and Takami are considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention as they are involved with endoscopic devices.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Venkataraman with that of Takami to include wherein the camera control unit of Venkataraman is further configured to: in response to identifying the scope in the undeployed state of Venkataraman, monitoring a lapsed time of the undeployed state of Venkataraman, and in response to the lapsed time exceeding a predetermined time, deactivating a light source of the surgical scope through the combination of references as it would have yielded the predictable result of lowering power consumption (Takami (Col. 5, lines 50-62)).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARI SINGH KANE PADDA whose telephone number is (571)272-7228. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Jason Sims can be reached at (571) 272-7540. 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.
/ARI S PADDA/ Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/RENE T TOWA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791
