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:
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 7 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, line 8, ".
In claim 7, it is not expressly recited how “temporarily stop tracking of the viewpoint of the endoscope until the processor acquires the endoscopic image from which the processor estimates that the viewpoint of the endoscope is trackable” will be performed when estimating trackability of the viewpoint after tracking the viewpoint. For purposes of examination this claim will be interpreted in view of the embodiment illustrated in Fig. 12, where estimation of trackability is required to be after tracking the viewpoint.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3, 6, and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US 20260083504 A1 "Posner".
Regarding claim 1, an information processing apparatus (Posner discloses a computing system 3700; see ¶ [0388], Fig. 37) comprising: a processor (Posner discloses a processor 3710; see ¶ [0388], Fig. 37), wherein the processor is configured to: acquire an endoscopic image of a living body (Posner discloses a colonoscope 205d including a visual image camera 210a used for navigation through internal body structures of a patient; see ¶ ¶ [0127-0128], Fig. 2B); estimate whether or not a viewpoint of an endoscope that has captured the endoscopic image is trackable from the acquired endoscopic image (Posner discloses an image filter block 625b for determining pose tracking suitability given an endoscopic image; see ¶ [0154], Fig. 6); and in a case where the processor estimates that the viewpoint of the endoscope is not trackable, performs control to temporarily stop tracking of the viewpoint of the endoscope until the processor acquires the endoscopic image from which the processor estimates that the viewpoint of the endoscope is trackable. (Posner discloses a case where an image is determined not suitable for tracking by the image filter section 625b, the image will not estimate the pose, and the next image is considered instead ¶ [0154]. Additionally, in a case where a subsequent image is determined suitable for tracking, that image continues downstream for pose estimation; see ¶ [0155], Fig. 6.)
Regarding claim 3, the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to: estimate whether or not the viewpoint of the endoscope that has captured the endoscopic image is trackable, based on a classification result of classifying the endoscopic image into any of a plurality of classes including a trackable class and an untrackable class. (Posner discloses image filter block 625b for binary classification into suitable and non-suitable images for determining if the image should continue downstream ¶ ¶ [0154-0155]; see Fig. 6, block 625b "yes" or "no" decision.)
Regarding claim 6, the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to: estimate whether or not the viewpoint of the endoscope is trackable before the processor tracks the viewpoint of the endoscope. (Posner discloses determining suitability at image filter block 625b before pose estimation sections 530a and 530b; see ¶ ¶ [0154-0155], Fig. 6.)
Regarding claim 8, the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to: control such that, even during a period in which the tracking of the viewpoint of the endoscope is temporarily stopped, the processor continues to acquire the endoscopic image and continues to estimate whether or not the viewpoint of the endoscope is trackable from the acquired endoscopic image. (Posner discloses a case where an image is determined not suitable for tracking by the image filter section 625b, the image will not estimate the pose, and the next image is considered instead ¶ [0154].)
Regarding claim 9, the information processing apparatus according to claim 8, wherein the processor is configured to: perform control to resume the tracking of the viewpoint of the endoscope in a case where the processor estimates that the viewpoint of the endoscope is trackable for a new endoscopic image acquired by the processor during the period for which the tracking of the viewpoint of the endoscope is temporarily stopped. (Posner discloses a case where an image is determined not suitable for tracking by the image filter section 625b, the image will not estimate the pose, and the next image is considered instead ¶ [0154]. Additionally, in a case where a subsequent image is determined suitable for tracking, that image continues downstream for pose estimation; see ¶ [0155], Figs. 6, 32.)
Regarding claim 10, a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing an information processing program executable by a computer to execute a process comprising: acquiring an endoscopic image of a living body; estimating whether or not a viewpoint of an endoscope that has captured the endoscopic image is trackable from the acquired endoscopic image; and in a case where it is estimated that the viewpoint of the endoscope is not trackable, temporarily stopping tracking of the viewpoint of the endoscope until the endoscopic image, from which it is estimated that the viewpoint of the endoscope is trackable, is acquired. (Rejected as stated in claim 1. This is a corresponding computer readable medium (CRM) claim. Posner discloses that the described technique may be embodied as software stored on non-transitory computer-readable media 3715 and perform operations on a processor to carry out processes ¶ ¶ [0389-0392].)
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 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 2 and 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20260083504 A1 "Posner" as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of US 20220207728 A1 "Rittscher".
Regarding claim 2, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein. Posner does not teach estimating whether or not the viewpoint of the endoscope that has captured the endoscopic image is trackable, based on a score indicating a degree of trackability of the viewpoint of the endoscope obtained from the endoscopic image. However, Rittscher teaches a score representing the quality of an endoscopic frame based on the type of image artefact, area, and location; see ¶ [0082], Figs. 3-4. Types of image artefacts include blur, erroneous exposure, specular reflection, chromatic aberration, occlusions, and bubbles; see ¶ ¶ [0071-0076], Figs. 3-4. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to incorporate Rittscher's image quality assessment improvements into Posner's pose trackability estimation method to improve estimation accuracy.
Regarding claim 4, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein. Posner does not teach estimating whether or not the viewpoint of the endoscope that has captured the endoscopic image is trackable, using a type of an unknown structure region that is included in the endoscopic image and that is determined in advance to affect the tracking of the viewpoint of the endoscope. Rejected as stated in claim 2.
Regarding claim 5, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein. Posner does not teach estimating whether or not the viewpoint of the endoscope that has captured the endoscopic image is trackable, using a range of an unknown structure region that is included in the endoscopic image and that is determined in advance to affect the tracking of the viewpoint of the endoscope. Rejected as stated in claim 2.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20260083504 A1 "Posner" as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of US 20150057498 A1 "Akimoto".
Regarding claim 7, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein. Posner does not teach estimating whether or not the viewpoint of the endoscope is trackable after the processor tracks the viewpoint of the endoscope. However, Akimoto teaches tracking the position of the distal end of insertion portion 11 in step S2 ¶ [0095], then determining if the tracking has been performed within a predetermined condition in Step S3 ¶ [0096]; see Fig. 3. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to incorporate Akimoto's image estimation and tracking process improvements into Posner's pose and tracking estimation method to improve pose tracking accuracy.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication should be directed to Cosmo Schafer at telephone number (571)272-2144. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:00-6:00.
Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats. See MPEP § 713.01. 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, Vu Le can be reached on (571)272-7332. 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.
/COSMO A SCHAFER/ Examiner, Art Unit 2668
/VU LE/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2668
