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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Incorrect numbering of elements. In paragraph 0025 of the specification, “the monitor 303” should read “the monitor 30.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 4, and 7-8 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, line 3, “an edge detection unit that detects” should read “an edge detection unit configured to detect.” The suggested modification would improve clarity by clarifying that the recited limitation defines the functionality of the claimed apparatus rather than reciting a method step.
In claim 1, line 5, “an edge component correction unit that corrects” should read “an edge component correction unit configured to correct.” The suggested modification would improve clarity by clarifying that the recited limitation defines the functionality of the claimed apparatus rather than reciting a method step.
In claim 1, line 9, “an enhancement processing unit that performs” should read “an enhancement processing unit configured to perform.” The suggested modification would improve clarity by clarifying that the recited limitation defines the functionality of the claimed apparatus rather than reciting a method step.
In claim 3, line 5, “the threshold in the edge component” should read “the threshold of the edge component.” This suggested modification would improve the antecedent basis for the claim limitation.
In claim 4, line 3, “an intensity changing unit that changes” should read “an intensity changing unit configured to change.” The suggested modification would improve clarity by clarifying that the recited limitation defines the functionality of the claimed apparatus rather than reciting a method step.
In claim 7, line 3 and claim 8, line 3, “a light source unit that generates” should read “a light source unit configured to generate.” The suggested modification would improve clarity by clarifying that the recited limitation defines the functionality of the claimed apparatus rather than reciting a method step.
In claim 9, line 3, “an endoscope connected to the processor for an endoscope” should read “the endoscope connected to the processor for the endoscope.” This suggested modification would improve the antecedent basis for the claim limitation.
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 limitations are:
“an edge detection unit configured to detect an edge component for each of pixels of the captured image of the living tissue” in claim 1 as described in Para. [0027] of Applicant’s specification.
“an edge component correction unit configured to correct the edge component of each of the pixels detected by the edge detection unit with reference to threshold setting data in which a threshold of the edge component in accordance with a luminance value is set” in claim 1 as described in Paras. [0027-0028] of Applicant’s specification.
“an enhancement processing unit configured to perform contour enhancement processing on the captured image based on the edge component corrected by the edge component correction unit” in claim 1 as described in Para. [0030] of Applicant’s specification.
“an intensity changing unit configured to change the intensity of enhancement of the contour enhancement processing in accordance with an operation of a user” in claim 4 as described in Para. [0037] of Applicant’s specification.
“a light source unit configured to generate, as illumination light for illuminating the living tissue, either first illumination light in a first wavelength band or second illumination light in a second wavelength band different from the first wavelength band” in claims 7 and 8 as described in Para. [0020] of Applicant’s specification.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-9 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “an edge component correction unit that corrects the edge component of each of the pixels detected by the edge detection unit with reference to threshold setting data in which a threshold of the edge component in accordance with a luminance value is set” in lines 5-7. The limitation fails to clearly define the manner in which the edge component is corrected with reference to the recited threshold setting data. In particular, it is unclear what relationship between the edge component, the luminance value, and the threshold causes or determines the recited correction, and how the threshold set in accordance with the luminance value is used to correct the detected edge component. Accordingly, the metes and bounds of the claimed “edge component correction unit” cannot be determined with reasonable certainty.
Claims 2 and 3 recite the limitation "the threshold" in l. 3 of claim 2 and l. 4 of claim 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of examination, “the threshold” is being interpreted as “the threshold of the edge component.”
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the changed intensity" in line 6-7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of examination, “the changed intensity” is being interpreted as “a changed intensity.”
Claims 5-6 recite the limitation "a plurality of the contour enhancement processing methods" in l. 5-6 of claim 5 and l. 5-6 of claim 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of examination, “a plurality of the contour enhancement processing methods” is being interpreted as “a plurality of contour enhancement processing methods.”
Claims 6 and 8 recite the limitation "a plurality of the parameters different from each other" in l. 8 of claim 6 and l. 7 of claim 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of examination, “a plurality of parameters different from each other” is being interpreted as “a plurality of parameters different from each other.”
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the parameter associated with the illumination light" in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of examination, “the parameter associated with the illumination light” is being interpreted as “a parameter associated with the illumination light.”
Claims 7 and 9 are rejected as being dependent upon claims previously rejected under 35 USC § 112(b).
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.
The present rejection(s) reference specific passages from cited prior art. However, Applicant is advised that the rejections are based on the entirety of each cited prior art. That is, each cited prior art reference “must be considered in its entirety”. (See MPEP 2141.02(VI)) Therefore, Applicant is advised to review all portions of the cited prior art if traversing a rejection based on the cited prior art.
Claims 1-2 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Appl. Publ. No. 2009/0016635 A1 to Takayama (“Takayama”).
Regarding claim 1, Takayama discloses a processor for an electronic endoscope that acquires a captured image of a living tissue and performs image processing (the endoscope system comprises a videoscope 10 and an image-processing unit 20. The videoscope 10 is an imaging apparatus for capturing an image of a subject; Fig. 1, paragraph 0020), the processor comprising:
an edge detection unit (edge component generation circuit 41; Fig. 2, paragraph 0027) that detects an edge component for each of pixels of the captured image of the living tissue (the input luminance data Y0 is subjected to an edge-component generation process so as to generate edge component data E1 with the edge-component generation circuit 41; Fig. 2, paragraphs 0026-027);
an edge component correction unit (weighting circuit 42; Fig. 2, paragraph 0027) that corrects the edge component of each of the pixels detected by the edge detection unit with reference to threshold setting data in which a threshold of the edge component in accordance with a luminance value is set (at the weighting block 42, the input pixel luminance values y0 are input to the coefficient determiner 34. The coefficient determiner 34 determines a weighted coefficient S, per defined target pixel P0, according to the input pixel luminance value y0 of the defined target pixel P0, using the data in the look-up table; Figs. 2 and 4, paragraph 0035); and
an enhancement processing unit (adder 43; Fig. 2, paragraph 0042) that performs contour enhancement processing on the captured image based on the edge component corrected by the edge component correction unit (the input pixel luminance value y0 and the weighted edge component pixel value e2, which correspond to the same target pixel P0, are input to the adder 43 simultaneously. At the adder 43, the weighted edge component pixel value e2 is added to the input pixel luminance value y0, which results in an output pixel luminance value y2 for each target pixel P0; Fig. 2, paragraph 0042).
Regarding claim 2, Takayama discloses a processor for an electronic endoscope according to claim 1. Takayama further discloses wherein in the threshold setting data, the threshold is set in such a manner that the threshold of the edge component increases as the luminance value increases (the edge component coefficient increases as the luminance value increases from 0 to 32; Fig. 4, paragraph 0037).
Regarding claim 9, Takayama discloses a processor for an electronic endoscope according to claim 1. Takayama further discloses an endoscope system (an endoscope system; Fig. 1, paragraph 0020) comprising:
the processor for an endoscope according to claim 1 (image-processing unit 20; Fig. 1, paragraph 0020); and
an endoscope connected to the processor for an endoscope (videoscope 10; Fig. 1, paragraph 0020) and comprising an image sensor that captures the living tissue (the videoscope 10 includes an image sensor 11 such as a CCD; Fig. 1, paragraph 0021).
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.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takayama in view of U.S. Patent Appl. Publ. No. 2019/0167083 A1 to Watanabe (“Watanabe”).
Regarding claim 5, Takayama discloses a processor for an electronic endoscope according to claim 1. However, Takayama does not explicitly disclose the enhancement processing unit performs the contour enhancement processing according to a contour enhancement processing method selected in accordance with an operation of a user from among a plurality of the contour enhancement processing methods,
the plurality of contour enhancement processing methods are associated with different pieces of the threshold setting data, respectively, and
the edge component correction unit corrects the edge component with reference to the threshold setting data associated with the selected contour enhancement processing method.
Watanabe teaches the enhancement processing unit performs the contour enhancement processing according to a contour enhancement processing method selected in accordance with an operation of a user from among a plurality of the contour enhancement processing methods (contour enhancement processing applying for example, a spatial filter SFA; Fig. 7-8, paragraph 0084) (contour enhancement processing applying, for example, a spatial filter SFB; Fig. 9-10, paragraph 0085).
Watanabe is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of endoscopes with edge enhancement image processing. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated a plurality of different contour enhancement methods in the enhancement processing unit of Takayama, as taught by Watanabe, to increase the functionality of the endoscope system of Tatsuta by enabling the processor to perform contour enhancement on both a white light image and a mixed white light and fluorescence image, as recognized by Takayama. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize different illumination standard values and corresponding look-up tables for a white-light-only image and a white-light and fluorescence mixed image because the different illumination modalities produce different image characteristics. One of ordinary skill in the art would therefore have recognized that illumination-specific standard values and look-up tables would permit the processing to be appropriately adapted to the illumination conditions under which the respective image is obtained.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takayama in view of U.S. Patent Appl. Publ. No. 2026/0102060 A1 to Iwane et al. (“Iwane”).
Regarding claim 7, Takayama discloses a processor for an electronic endoscope according to claim 1. However, Takayama does not explicitly disclose further comprising a light source unit that generates, as illumination light for illuminating the living tissue, either first illumination light in a first wavelength band or second illumination light in a second wavelength band different from the first wavelength band, wherein
the first illumination light and the second illumination light are associated with different pieces of the threshold setting data, and
the edge component correction unit corrects the edge component with reference to the threshold setting data associated with the illumination light generated by the light source unit out of the first illumination and the second illumination light.
Iwane teaches comprising a light source unit (light source device 5043 is a device capable of emitting the light having predetermined wavelength bands; Fig. 1, paragraph 0040) that generates, as illumination light for illuminating the living tissue, either first illumination light in a first wavelength band or second illumination light in a second wavelength band different from the first wavelength band (in narrow band imaging that is a kind of special light observation, blue light and green light are alternately emitted, and thus the narrow band imaging can image a predetermined tissue such as a blood vessel in a mucosal surface at high contrast using wavelength dependence of light absorption in the tissue of the body; Fig. 1, paragraph 0040). Iwane teaches that a light source unit capable of emitting lights with different wavelength bands helps image a variety of tissue types such as a blood vessel (paragraph 0040).
Iwane is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of endoscopes with a light source device. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated a plurality of different LED light sources in the light source device of Takayama, as taught by Iwane, to increase the functionality of the endoscope system of Takayama by enabling the endoscope to image predetermined tissue such as a blood vessel in a mucosal surface, as recognized by Iwane. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that different illumination standard values and different look-up tables can be used for different illumination lights because illumination lights having different wavelengths produce different amounts of reflected light from tissue, and an image sensor may respond differently to different respective wavelengths.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-4, 6, and 8 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 3, Takayama discloses a processor for an electronic endoscope according to claim 1. However, neither Takayama and Watanabe, alone or together, explicitly disclose when the edge component detected by the edge detection unit exceeds the threshold, the edge component correction unit corrects the edge component based on a parameter set to decrease a portion exceeding the threshold in the edge component, and the parameter is set in such a manner that the portion exceeding the threshold decreases as an intensity of enhancement of the contour enhancement processing increases.
Additionally, there is no reason, teaching, or suggestion provided with any prior art of record to modify the above endoscope to have the above features.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. U.S. Patent Appl. Publ. No. 2024/0389847 A1 to Suzuki et al. teaches a processor that performs edge detection and edge component correction as described in Fig. 14 and the descriptive text.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OLIVIA G STARKEY whose telephone number is (571)272-3375. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-5:00 ET.
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, Michael Carey can be reached at 5712707235. 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.
/OLIVIA GRACE STARKEY/ Examiner, Art Unit 3795
/MICHAEL J CAREY/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3795
Prosecution Insights