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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file. Accordingly, the benefit of foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) is obtained.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 reads “the imaging sensor receiving the images from a configuration system” [lines 14-15]. It is clear the applicant intended to discuss functional limitations of the imaging system rather than recite a method step in a device claim, and this section is best understood to mean “the imaging sensor configured to receive images from a configuration system”.
Claim 1 reads “the image of the separating structures” [lines 20-21] where it is clear this is instead intended to read “the images of the separating structures”.
Claim 5 reads “the imaging processor processes”. It is clear the applicant intended to discuss functional limitations of the imaging processor rather than recite a method step in a device claim. This should be amended with “configured to” language or the like.
Claim 13 reads “at least one optical fiber conveying”. It is clear the applicant intended to discuss functional limitations of the optical fiber rather than recite a method step in a device claim. This should be amended with “configured to” language or the like.
Claim 14 reads “the imaging sensor or sensors receive” [lines 2]. It is clear the applicant intended to discuss functional limitations of the one or more imaging sensors rather than recite a method step in a device claim. This should be amended with “configured to” language or the like.
Claim 14 reads “in that the imaging processor processes the images to determine a measurement of the target based on the size indicators” [lines 4-6]. It is clear this was intended to be recited on a new line, without “in that”.
Claim 14 reads “the imaging processor processes” [lines 4-5]. It is clear the applicant intended to discuss functional limitations of the imaging processor rather than recite a method step in a device claim. This should be amended with “configured to” language or the like.
Claim Interpretation
In regards to claims 4 and 6-11, the claims recite structure of the configuration system. As the configuration system is interpreted as being functionally recited in claim 1, these claims are interpreted as reciting the structure of a functionally recited item.
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 1-14 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
There are severe clarity problems with these claims. The claims should be carefully and thoroughly revised.
In regards to claim 1, the claim reads “An imaging system for a medical endoscopic system for viewing a target including:” [lines 1-2]. Here, it is not clear if the subsequent items are part of the target or part of the imaging system. Therefore, the claim is unclear. For the purposes of prosecution, it will be assumed the subsequent items in claim 1 are part of the imaging system.
In regards to claim 1, the claim reads “An imaging system for a medial endoscopic system for viewing a target including: - a medical endoscopic system” [lines 1-3].
Here, the claim preamble directly contradicts the claim body, making it unclear whether the medical endoscopic system is claimed. Therefore, the claim is unclear. For the purposes of prosecution, it will be assumed that the medical endoscopic system is claimed.
In regards to claim 1, the claim reads “insertion instrument being provided with a first multicore optical fiber and with a second first multicore optical fiber each having a distal end, a proximal end and a plurality of cores separated by a separating structure” [lines 4-7]. Here, it is not clear what is separated by the separating structure. Therefore, the claim is unclear. For the purposes of prosecution, it will be assumed that it is only the plurality of cores separated by the separating structure.
In regards to claim 1, the claim reads “the imaging sensor” [line 14]. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Therefore, the claim is unclear. For the purposes of prosecution, it will be assumed this is the same as “at least one imaging sensor” [line 12], and that subsequent recitations of “the imaging sensor” in this claim are this same item.
In regards to claim 1, the claim reads “the position of the separating structure” [line 16]. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Therefore, the claim is unclear. For the purposes of prosecution, it will be assumed this is a newly recited item, and will hereinbelow be written as “a position of the separating structure”.
In regards to claim 1, the claim reads “a position of the separating structure of the first multicore optical fiber is different from the separating structure of the second multicore optical fiber” [lines 16-17]. Here, this could be a comparison of a position of the separating structure of the first multicore optical fiber with the existence of the separating structure of the second multicore optical fiber. This could also be understood to be a drafting error intended to instead read “a position of the separating structure of the first multicore optical fiber is different from a position of the separating structure of the second multicore optical fiber”. Therefore, the claim is unclear. For the purposes of prosecution, it will be assumed that the latter is the case. This will be written as the latter hereinbelow.
In regards to claim 1, the claim reads “the imaging sensor receiving the images from a configuration system to create, on the imaging sensor, images of the target, for which a position of the separating structure of the first multicore optical fiber is different from a position of the separating structure of the second multicore optical fiber” [lines 14-17]. Here, it isn’t clear if the configuration system is constituted by differing positions of the first and second multicore optical fiber separating structures, or if images of the separating structures have different positions in the “images of the target”. Therefore, the claim is unclear. For the purposes of prosecution, it will be assumed the latter is the case.
In regards to claim 1, the claim reads “the images coming from the first multicore optical fiber and from the second multicore optical fiber” [lines 19-20]. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Therefore, the claim is unclear. For the purposes of prosecution, it will be assumed this is the same as “images of the target” of line 14.
In regards to claim 1, the claim reads “images of the target for which the position… is different” [lines 14-16] and “imaging processor connected to the imaging sensor and configured to process the images coming from the first multicore optical fiber and from the second multicore optical fiber, to reconstitute a composite image of the target in which the image of the separating structures does not appear” [lines 18-21].
It is unclear if this means single instances of “images of the target” have the separating structures at different positions (ie. if single instances have both separating structures in them), or if the separating structures are only found in separate instances of “images of the target”, in these separate images the separating structures found at differing positions. Therefore, the claim is unclear.
For the purposes of prosecution, it will be assumed the latter is the case.
In regards to claim 1, the claim reads “the image of the separating structures” [lines 20-21]. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Therefore, the claim is unclear. For the purposes of prosecution, it will be assumed this is a newly recited item.
In regards to claim 8, the claim reads “a first multicore optical fiber and a second multicore optical fiber”. It is unclear if this is the same as the first and second multicore optical fiber of claim 1. Therefore, the claim is unclear. For the purposes of prosecution, it will be assumed these are the same as the referred recitations in claim 1.
In regards to claim 14, the claim reads “the imaging sensor or sensors” [line 2]. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Therefore, the claim is unclear. For the purposes of prosecution, it will be assumed this is the same as “at least one imaging sensor” of claim 1.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-14 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112, 2nd paragraph, and the claim objections, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: The prior art fails to teach, among other features, a medical endoscopic system comprising:
a medical endoscope and a device for acquiring and processing images,
the endoscope comprising an insertion portion,
the insertion portion comprising a distal head, and first and second multicore optical fibers, each multicore optical fiber having its own distal end, proximal end and plural cores, the plural cores separated by a separating structure in each multicore optical fiber,
the device comprising a light source, at least one image sensor and an image processor,
the light source configured to deliver a light beam to the distal head,
the at least one image sensor configured to receive light beams from the proximal ends of the first and second optical fibers, these producing respective images on the at least one image sensor, in the respective images the positions of the separating structures of the first and second optical fibers being different,
the image processor connected to the image sensor and configured to process the respective images to create a composite image in which the separating structures does not appear.
Duam et al. (US 2009/0092363) discloses a system with endoscope with a multicore optical fiber, the system also having an image sensor and image processor, the image processor configured to remove the separating structure of the optical fiber by barycentrical interpolation of individual images.
Liang et al. (US 2019/0209015) discloses a system with endoscope with a multicore optical fiber, the system also having an image sensor and image processor, the image processor configured to remove the separating structure of the optical fiber by combining images taken at different times.
Wang et al. (US 2020/0402211) discloses a system with endoscope with a multicore optical fiber, the system also having an image sensor and image processor, the image processor configured to remove the separating structure of the optical fiber by barycentrical interpolation of individual images.
Oh, Gyungeok et al: “Optical fibers for high-resolution in vivo microendoscopic fluorescence imaging”, OPTICAL FIBER TECHNOLOGY, Vol.19, no.6, 31 December 2013, pages 760-771 discloses a system with endoscope with a multicore optical fiber, the system also having an image sensor and image processor, the image processor configured to remove the separating structure of the optical fiber by combining images taken at different times when the multicore optical fiber is moved.
There is no reason or suggestion provided in the prior art to modify the above prior art to teach the limitations as claimed above, and the only reason to modify the references would be based on Applicant's disclosure, which is impermissible hindsight reasoning.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Duam et al. (US 2009/0092363)
Wang et al. (US 2020/0402211)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AARON B FAIRCHILD whose telephone number is (571)270-5276. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30am-5pm Monday-Friday.
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 (571) 270-7235. 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.
/AARON B FAIRCHILD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3795
