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 certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 04 April 2025, 10 June 2025, 26 June 2025, 21 April 2026, and 02 July 2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 3-9, 13-16, and 19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1: “the at least two zoom positions” in line 9 should be “the at least two different zoom positions” for further clarity and continuity in the claim language.
Claim 3: “the at least two zoom positions” in lines 2, 4, and 6 respectively should be “the at least two different zoom positions” for further clarity and continuity in the claim language.
Claim 4: “the objective” in lines 1 and 4 respectively should be “the at least one objective” for further clarity and continuity in the claim language.
Claim 5: “the at least two zoom positions” in line 1 should be “the at least two different zoom positions” for further clarity and continuity in the claim language.
Claim 6: “the focus values” in line 1 should be “the plurality of focus values” for further clarity and continuity in the claim language.
Claim 7: “the at least two zoom positions” in lines 2, 3-4, 5, and 7 respectively should be “the at least two different zoom positions” for further clarity and continuity in the claim language.
Claim 8: “the objective” in lines 3 and 5 respectively should be “the at least one objective” for further clarity and continuity in the claim language.
Claim 9: “the zoom positions” in lines 1-2 should be “the at least two different zoom positions” for further clarity and continuity in the claim language.
Claim 13: “the desired value” in lines 1 and 3 should be “the at least one desired value” and “the focus” in line 2 should be “the focus value” for further clarity and continuity in the claim language.
Claim 14: “the desired value” in line 1 should be “the at least one desired value” for further clarity and continuity in the claim language.
Claim 15: “the at least two zoom positions” in line 10 should be “the at least two different zoom positions” for further clarity and continuity in the claim language.
Claim 16: “the at least two zoom positions” in line 9 should be “the at least two different zoom positions” for further clarity and continuity in the claim language.
Claim 19: “the at least two zoom positions” in line 11 should be “the at least two different zoom positions” for further clarity and continuity in the claim language.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-19 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.
Regarding claim 1, “at least two different zoom positions” in line 5 is unclear as this limitation has been mentioned previously in the same claim. Is this limitation referring to the same zoom positions mentioned previously or different zoom positions? In light of the specification, the Examiner is interpreting this limitation to be referring to the same at least two different zoom positions mentioned previously.
Claims 2-14 are rejected for their dependency on claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, “the relative positions” in line 1 and “the beam path” in line 3 both lack proper antecedent basis and are therefore both unclear.
Regarding claim 3, “the difference” in line 5, “the focus values” in line 5, and “the contrast value” in lines 5-6 all lack proper antecedent basis and are therefore all unclear. (Note: a single focus value has been mentioned previously in claim 1, however, a plurality of focus values has not been mentioned. Additionally, a plurality of contrast values has been mentioned previously, but a single contrast value has not been mentioned).
Regarding claim 4, “at least one image” in line 2 is unclear as this limitation has been mentioned previous in claim 1, on which claim 4 is dependent. Is this limitation referring to the same at least one image mentioned previously or a different at least one image? In light of the specification, the Examiner is interpreting this limitation to be referring to the same at least one image mentioned previously. Additionally, “a specified object” in line 2 is unclear as this limitation has been mentioned previously in claim 1, on which claim 4 is dependent. Is this limitation referring to the same specified object mentioned previously or a different specified object? In light of the specification, the Examiner is interpreting this limitation to be referring to the same specified object mentioned previously.
Regarding claim 7, “the contrast value” in line 3, “the difference” in line 6, and “the focus values” in lines 6 all lack proper antecedent basis and are therefore all unclear. (Note: a single focus value has been mentioned previously in claim 1, however, a plurality of focus values has not been mentioned. Additionally, a plurality of contrast values has been mentioned previously, but a single contrast value has not been mentioned).
Regarding claim 8, “the distance” in line 3 and “the distance” in line 5 both lack proper antecedent basis and are therefore both unclear. Additionally, “at least one of the following applies: in lines 3-4 is unclear as this limitation has been mentioned previously in relation to the adjustment/calibration of the surgical microscope. It is unclear what this limitation is applied to. In light of the specification, the Examiner is interpreting this limitation as being mistakenly inserted and instead, the microscope adjustment/calibration includes one of limitations i, ii, and/or iii.
Regarding claim 9, “the focus values” in line 2 lacks proper antecedent basis and is therefore unclear. (Note: a single focus value has been mentioned previously in claim 1, however, a plurality of focus values has not been mentioned).
Regarding claim 10, “the image representation” in line 4 and “the image center” in line 5 both lack proper antecedent basis and are therefore both unclear.
Regarding claim 13, “the gradient” in line 3, “the dependence” in line 4, and “the zoom position” in line 5 all lack proper antecedent basis and are therefore all unclear. (Note: a plurality of different zoom positions has been mentioned previously, however a single zoom position has not been mentioned).
Regarding claim 15, “at least two different zoom positions” in line 6 is unclear as this limitation has been mentioned previously in the same claim. Is this limitation referring to the same zoom positions mentioned previously or different zoom positions? In light of the specification, the Examiner is interpreting this limitation to be referring to the same at least two different zoom positions mentioned previously.
Regarding claim 16, “at least two different zoom positions” in line 5 is unclear as this limitation has been mentioned previously in the same claim. Is this limitation referring to the same zoom positions mentioned previously or different zoom positions? In light of the specification, the Examiner is interpreting this limitation to be referring to the same at least two different zoom positions mentioned previously.
Claims 17-18 are rejected for their dependency on claim 16.
Regarding claim 19, “the program” in line 1 lacks proper antecedent basis and Is therefore unclear. Additionally, it is unclear as to what “the latter” in line 2 is referring. In light of the specification, the Examiner is interpreting this limitation to be referring to the computer mentioned previously. Additionally, “at least two different zoom positions” in line 7 is unclear as this limitation has been mentioned previously in the same claim. Is this limitation referring to the same zoom positions mentioned previously or different zoom positions? In light of the specification, the Examiner is interpreting this limitation to be referring to the same at least two different zoom positions mentioned previously.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 3, 5-6, 12, 14-16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang (CN 1831625 A) in view of Grigat et al. (DE 10249025 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Zhang teaches a method for performing at least one of adjusting, calibrating and monitoring a focus value of a device (¶2, This invention relates to image capturing, and more particularly to a focusing method for an image capturing device) including an image capture device (¶2, This invention relates to image capturing, and more particularly to a focusing method for an image capturing device) and a zoom system (¶11, the lens focus step adjustment method of the present invention is used in a digital imaging device, which includes a pair of focusing lenses), wherein the device is configured to be operated in at least two different zoom positions (¶26, In step 22, the calibration procedure is based on the concept that "the higher the lens resolution, the larger the image file it captures"… during the calibration process, the focusing lens is set in several different positions, and a focus image is taken at each different position), the method comprising: for at least two different zoom positions, capturing at least one image of a specified object via the image capture device (¶26, during the calibration process, the focusing lens is set in several different positions, and a focus image is taken at each different position; and ¶5, if the camera lens has poor telephoto light intake, it may cause the camera to make mistakes when focusing on distant objects); via the at least one captured image, determining a plurality of contrast values depending on the focus value (¶25, The focusing procedure in step 21 sets the focusing lens at several different positions and calculates a contrast value corresponding to each different position); and, via the determined contrast values for the at least two zoom positions, ascertaining at least one desired value for at least one of the following: i) at least one parameter for adjusting the focus value of the device; and, ii) at least one parameter for calibrating the focus value of the device (¶24, Adjust the position of the focusing lens according to the number of adjustment steps; ¶29, during subsequent focusing, after the focusing process is completed (at which point the focusing lens is in a position with the best contrast value), adjusting the position of the focusing lens by one adjustment step can adjust the lens to the optimal resolution; and see figure 3 and ¶28 for further details). However, Zhang fails to explicitly teach wherein the device is a surgical microscope including at least one objective.
However, Grigat teaches wherein the device is a surgical microscope including at least one objective (¶26, To correct errors, a calibration is first performed, whereby the operating microscope is described, as mentioned, as a two-pinhole camera on the imaging side. Calibration is performed for all zoom and focus levels; and ¶22, As is well known, a stereo light microscope can either consist of two convergent monocular single-objective microscopes or comprise two decentered optical channels behind a common front lens. Due to design-specific advantages, surgical microscopes are almost exclusively built as so-called Common Main Objectives (CMO) microscopes).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zhang to incorporate the teachings of Grigat to perform focusing/zoom operations on a surgical microscope because, in order to perform accurate surgical interventions on the human brain, spine, etc., proper focus is required. Additionally, it would have been obvious to include an objective as microscopes commonly include an objective.
Regarding claim 3, Zhang as modified by Grigat teaches the method of claim 1, wherein at least one of the following applies: i) the at least one desired value for each of the at least two zoom positions is ascertained and/or specified separately (Zhang, ¶24, Adjust the position of the focusing lens according to the number of adjustment steps; and Note: when the desired value is defined as adjustment steps, the adjustments steps between different zoom positions would be different and separately specified); and, ii) the at least one desired value for the at least two zoom positions is ascertained and/or specified in a way such that the difference between the focus values at which the contrast value is maximum is less for the at least two zoom positions than a specified threshold value (N/A).
Regarding claim 5, Zhang as modified by Grigat teaches the method of claim 1, wherein, for each of the at least two zoom positions, an image of the specified object is captured at a plurality of focus values (Zhang, see ¶25-26).
Regarding claim 6, Zhang as modified by Grigat teaches the method of claim 5, wherein the focus values are set using an adjustable focus system (Zhang, see ¶24).
Regarding claim 12, Zhang as modified by Grigat teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the focus value is a relative focus value or a focus value difference (Zhang, ¶11, adjusting the focusing step number of the focusing lens based on the adjustment step number; ¶27, This number of adjustment steps is the focus error, and its value depends on the lens used in the image capturing device, and Note: in this case, the adjustment step number is the focus value).
Regarding claim 14, Zhang as modified by Grigat teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the desired value is calculated and/or provided in the form of a target focus line or target focus region in a captured image of the specified object (Zhang, ¶11, adjusting the focusing step number of the focusing lens based on the adjustment step number; ¶27, This number of adjustment steps is the focus error, and its value depends on the lens used in the image capturing device, and Note: in this case, the adjustment step number is the target focus).
Regarding claim 15, Zhang teaches a control device for carrying out at least one of the following: adjusting, calibrating and monitoring a focus value of a device (¶2, This invention relates to image capturing, and more particularly to a focusing method for an image capturing device) including an image capture device (¶2, This invention relates to image capturing, and more particularly to a focusing method for an image capturing device) and a zoom system (¶11, the lens focus step adjustment method of the present invention is used in a digital imaging device, which includes a pair of focusing lenses), wherein the device is configured to be operated in at least two different zoom positions (¶26, In step 22, the calibration procedure is based on the concept that "the higher the lens resolution, the larger the image file it captures"… during the calibration process, the focusing lens is set in several different positions, and a focus image is taken at each different position); the control device comprising being configured to carry out a method including the steps of: for at least two different zoom positions, capturing at least one image of a specified object via the image capture device (¶26, during the calibration process, the focusing lens is set in several different positions, and a focus image is taken at each different position; and ¶5, if the camera lens has poor telephoto light intake, it may cause the camera to make mistakes when focusing on distant objects); via the at least one captured image, determining a plurality of contrast values depending on the focus value (¶25, The focusing procedure in step 21 sets the focusing lens at several different positions and calculates a contrast value corresponding to each different position); and, via the determined contrast values for the at least two zoom positions, ascertaining at least one desired value for at least one of the following: i) at least one parameter for adjusting the focus value of the device; and, ii) at least one parameter for calibrating the focus value of the device (¶24, Adjust the position of the focusing lens according to the number of adjustment steps; ¶29, during subsequent focusing, after the focusing process is completed (at which point the focusing lens is in a position with the best contrast value), adjusting the position of the focusing lens by one adjustment step can adjust the lens to the optimal resolution; and see figure 3 and ¶28 for further details). However, Zhang fails to explicitly teach wherein the device is a surgical microscope including at least one objective.
However, Grigat teaches wherein the device is a surgical microscope including at least one objective (¶26, To correct errors, a calibration is first performed, whereby the operating microscope is described, as mentioned, as a two-pinhole camera on the imaging side. Calibration is performed for all zoom and focus levels; and ¶22, As is well known, a stereo light microscope can either consist of two convergent monocular single-objective microscopes or comprise two decentered optical channels behind a common front lens. Due to design-specific advantages, surgical microscopes are almost exclusively built as so-called Common Main Objectives (CMO) microscopes).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zhang to incorporate the teachings of Grigat to perform focusing/zoom operations on a surgical microscope because, in order to perform accurate surgical interventions on the human brain, spine, etc., proper focus is required. Additionally, it would have been obvious to include an objective as microscopes commonly include an objective.
Regarding claim 16, Zhang teach a device comprising an image capture device (¶2, This invention relates to image capturing, and more particularly to a focusing method for an image capturing device) and a zoom system (¶11, the lens focus step adjustment method of the present invention is used in a digital imaging device, which includes a pair of focusing lenses), wherein the device is configured to be operated in at least two different zoom positions (¶26, In step 22, the calibration procedure is based on the concept that "the higher the lens resolution, the larger the image file it captures"… during the calibration process, the focusing lens is set in several different positions, and a focus image is taken at each different position); and, the device is configured to carry out a method including the steps of: for at least two different zoom positions, capturing at least one image of a specified object via the image capture device (¶26, during the calibration process, the focusing lens is set in several different positions, and a focus image is taken at each different position; and ¶5, if the camera lens has poor telephoto light intake, it may cause the camera to make mistakes when focusing on distant objects); via the at least one captured image, determining a plurality of contrast values depending on the focus value (¶25, The focusing procedure in step 21 sets the focusing lens at several different positions and calculates a contrast value corresponding to each different position); and, via the determined contrast values for the at least two zoom positions, ascertaining at least one desired value for at least one of the following: i) at least one parameter for adjusting the focus value of the device; and, ii) at least one parameter for calibrating the focus value of the device (¶24, Adjust the position of the focusing lens according to the number of adjustment steps; ¶29, during subsequent focusing, after the focusing process is completed (at which point the focusing lens is in a position with the best contrast value), adjusting the position of the focusing lens by one adjustment step can adjust the lens to the optimal resolution; and see figure 3 and ¶28 for further details). However, Zhang fails to explicitly teach wherein the device is a surgical microscope including at least one objective.
However, Grigat teaches wherein the device is a surgical microscope including at least one objective (¶26, To correct errors, a calibration is first performed, whereby the operating microscope is described, as mentioned, as a two-pinhole camera on the imaging side. Calibration is performed for all zoom and focus levels; and ¶22, As is well known, a stereo light microscope can either consist of two convergent monocular single-objective microscopes or comprise two decentered optical channels behind a common front lens. Due to design-specific advantages, surgical microscopes are almost exclusively built as so-called Common Main Objectives (CMO) microscopes).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zhang to incorporate the teachings of Grigat to perform focusing/zoom operations on a surgical microscope because, in order to perform accurate surgical interventions on the human brain, spine, etc., proper focus is required. Additionally, it would have been obvious to include an objective as microscopes commonly include an objective.
Regarding claim 18, Zhang as modified by Grigat teaches the surgical microscope of claim 16, wherein the surgical microscope has a stereoscopic optical system (Grigat, ¶22, As is well known, a stereo light microscope can either consist of two convergent monocular single-objective microscopes or comprise two decentered optical channels behind a common front lens).
Claims 2, 8-9, 13, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang (CN 1831625 A) in view of Grigat et al. (DE 10249025 A1) as applied to claims 1 and 16 above, and further in view of Ja (U.S. Patent No. 11714273 B1).
Regarding claim 2, Zhang as modified by Grigat teaches wherein at least one correction value for the relative position of the focusing element is ascertained based on the at least one desired value (Zhang, ¶27, Since each position of the focusing lens can be represented by a corresponding number of focusing steps, after determining the first and second positions, in step 23, the difference in the number of steps between the corresponding focusing steps of these two positions can be directly calculated to obtain the adjustment steps). However, the combination fails to explicitly teach wherein the at least one correction value is for the relative position of at least one objective and/or the image capture device within the surgical microscope.
However, Ja teaches wherein the at least one correction value is for the relative position of at least one objective (108) and/or the image capture device (117) within the surgical microscope (100) (col. 2, lines 56-60, If the system determines that further adjustment of the distance between the imaged subject and the objective may increase image contrast, the system determines corrected positions based on the acquired image contrast samples; and see col 16, lines 27-62 for further details).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Zhang and Grigat to incorporate the teachings of Ja to have the desired value used to obtain a correction value in order to properly adjust the microscope device for accurate focus.
Regarding claim 8, Zhang as modified by Grigat teaches wherein the focus value of the surgical microscope is adjusted and/or calibrated (Zhang, ¶2, This invention relates to image capturing, and more particularly to a focusing method for an image capturing device; and Grigat, ¶26, To correct errors, a calibration is first performed, whereby the operating microscope is described, as mentioned, as a two-pinhole camera on the imaging side. Calibration is performed for all zoom and focus levels). However, the combination fails to explicitly teach wherein the focus value of the surgical microscope is adjusted and/or calibrated by at least one of the following: i) adapting the distance between an object plane and the objective at least one of the following applies: ii) adapting the distance between the objective and an image plane of the image capture device; and, iii) by displacing a first optical element of the at least one objective relative to a second optical element of the at least one objective.
However, Ja teaches wherein the focus value of the surgical microscope is adjusted and/or calibrated by at least one of the following: i) adapting the distance between an object plane and the objective (col. 2, lines 39-42, a distance between the imaged subject and an objective of the system may be adjusted to adjust the focusing of the imaged subject) at least one of the following applies: ii) adapting the distance between the objective and an image plane of the image capture device (N/A); and, iii) by displacing a first optical element of the at least one objective relative to a second optical element of the at least one objective (N/A).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Zhang and Grigat to incorporate the teachings of Ja to have the distance between the objective and the image plane adjusted as this allows for adjustment of focus.
Regarding claim 9, Zhang as modified by Grigat teaches at least two zoom positions (Zhang, ¶26, In step 22, the calibration procedure is based on the concept that "the higher the lens resolution, the larger the image file it captures"… during the calibration process, the focusing lens is set in several different positions, and a focus image is taken at each different position). However, the combination fails to explicitly teach wherein at least one of the following applies: i) the zoom positions are set automatically; and, (ii) the focus values are set automatically.
However, Ja teaches wherein at least one of the following applies: i) the zoom positions are set automatically (N/A); and, (ii) the focus values are set automatically (col. 3, lines 10-14, The microscope assembly 100 additionally includes an auto-focus system 101 for automatically aligning a focus of an objective 108 of the microscope with a target focal plane (e.g., focal plane 105) of a subject 110 to be imaged).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Zhang and Grigat to incorporate the teachings of Ja to have the focusing set automatically as it removes the need for user intervention, preventing human error and making the device more user friendly.
Regarding claim 13, Zhang as modified by Grigat teaches wherein the ascertainment of the desired value includes ascertaining a change value of the focus of the surgical microscope (Zhang, ¶11, adjusting the focusing step number of the focusing lens based on the adjustment step number; ¶27, This number of adjustment steps is the focus error, and its value depends on the lens used in the image capturing device; and see ¶28 for further details; and Grigat, ¶26, To correct errors, a calibration is first performed, whereby the operating microscope is described, as mentioned, as a two-pinhole camera on the imaging side. Calibration is performed for all zoom and focus levels). However, the combination fails to explicitly teach wherein the ascertainment of the desired value and/or the change value is based on an evaluation of the gradient of at least one curve which maps the dependence of the focus value or a captured focus change with respect to a reference variable from the zoom position, wherein a functional relationship between the gradient and a focus setting of the surgical microscope is used.
However, Ja teaches wherein the ascertainment of the desired value and/or the change value is based on an evaluation of the gradient of at least one curve which maps the dependence of the focus value or a captured focus change with respect to a reference variable from the zoom position, wherein a functional relationship between the gradient and a focus setting of the surgical microscope is used (col. 11, lines 17-27, The controller may measure the contrast of images acquired by the microscope assembly using the Brenner gradient. Although the Brenner gradient may be used to evaluate the image contrast, it is a “relative measurement”, which means the highest value corresponding to the in-focus image (e.g., the peak focused position of the subject) can be identified with several data points (e.g., contrast samples) to form the actual Lorentzian curve by acquiring several images for different positions of the subject (e.g., different distances between the subject and the objective)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Zhang and Grigat to incorporate the teachings of Ja to use the gradient of a mapped curve to determine the optimal focus as it is computationally simple and fast, which is ideal for real-time processing.
Regarding claim 17, Zhang as modified by Grigat teaches said method steps (Zhang, see ¶¶24-29). However, the combination fails to explicitly teach a controller configured to carry out said method steps.
However, Ja teaches a controller (116) configured to carry out said method steps (col. 4, lines 34-38, The controller 116 may determine a contrast of the image of the subject 110 based on the signals transmitted to the controller 116 by the auto-focus sensor 102 and the controller 116 may adjust the focusing of the subject 110 based on the determined image contrast).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Zhang and Grigat to incorporate the teachings of Ja to provide a controller in order to perform the focusing method automatically.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang (CN 1831625 A) in view of Grigat et al. (DE 10249025 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ja (U.S. Patent No. 11714273 B1) and Yamamoto (USPGPub 20210026121 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Zhang as modified by Grigat teaches the objective (Grigat, ¶22, As is well known, a stereo light microscope can either consist of two convergent monocular single-objective microscopes or comprise two decentered optical channels behind a common front lens. Due to design-specific advantages, surgical microscopes are almost exclusively built as so-called Common Main Objectives (CMO) microscopes) and an image capture device (Zhang, ¶2, This invention relates to image capturing, and more particularly to a focusing method for an image capturing device). However, the combination fails to explicitly teach wherein the objective defines an optical axis; and the method further comprising: as part of the capture of at least one image of a specified object, capturing at least one image of a planar surface of the specified object; and, wherein, the planar surface has a surface normal which encloses with the optical axis of the objective an angle of between 5 degrees and 85 degrees.
However, Ja teaches wherein the objective (108) defines an optical axis (150) (see figure 1, objective 108 defining axis 150).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Zhang and Grigat to incorporate the teachings of Ja to have the objective defining the optical axis as the light has to pass through the objective to reach the object being imaged. However, the combination fails to explicitly teach wherein the method further comprising: as part of the capture of at least one image of a specified object, capturing at least one image of a planar surface of the specified object; and, wherein, the planar surface has a surface normal which encloses with the optical axis of an angle of between 5 degrees and 85 degrees.
However, Yamamoto teaches wherein the method further comprising: as part of the capture of at least one image of a specified object, capturing at least one image of a planar surface of the specified object; and, wherein, the planar surface has a surface normal which encloses with the optical axis of an angle of between 5 degrees and 85 degrees (¶14, An inclination angle of the observation axis of the imaging optical system with respect to the emission surface of the planar light may be 10° to 80°. In this range, the resolution of the observed image can be sufficiently secured).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Zhang, Grigat, and Ja to incorporate the teachings of Yamamoto to have the planar surface of the specified object tilted because [i]n this range, the resolution of the observed image can be sufficiently secured (Yamamoto, ¶14).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang (CN 1831625 A) in view of Grigat et al. (DE 10249025 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tanaka et al. (USPGPub 20210006729 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Zhang as modified by Grigat teaches the focus value of the surgical microscope for each of the at least two zoom positions (Zhang, see ¶¶24-29; and Grigat, ¶22). However, the combination fails to explicitly teach wherein at least one of the following applies: i) the focus value of the device for each of the at least two zoom positions is adjusted and/or calibrated separately such that the contrast value for each of the at least two zoom positions is maximum; and, ii) the focus value of the device for the at least two zoom positions is adjusted and/or calibrated such that the difference between the focus values at which the contrast value is maximum is less for the at least two zoom positions than a specified threshold value.
However, Tanaka teaches wherein at least one of the following applies: i) the focus value of the device for each of the at least two zoom positions is adjusted and/or calibrated separately such that the contrast value for each of the at least two zoom positions is maximum (¶90, In the multi-point distance measurement, the contrast value of each distance measurement area 152 is acquired, and the position of the focus lens 84 corresponding to a peak of a change of the contrast value is detected for each distance measurement area 152); and, ii) the focus value of the device for the at least two zoom positions is adjusted and/or calibrated such that the difference between the focus values at which the contrast value is maximum is less for the at least two zoom positions than a specified threshold value (N/A).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Zhang and Grigat to incorporate the teachings of Tanaka to calibrate zoom positions separately in order to provide an accurate focusing position for every potential zoom/distance.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang (CN 1831625 A) in view of Grigat et al. (DE 10249025 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nahum et al. (U.S. Patent No. 10281700 B1).
Regarding claim 10, Zhang as modified by Grigat teaches the at least two zoom positions (Zhang, see ¶¶24-29). However, the combination fails to explicitly teach wherein at least one of the following applies: i) at the at least two different zoom positions, in each case at least one image of a specified calibration object, which has known features, is captured such that high-contrast regions are recognizable in the image representation; and, ii) only contrast values in a specified region of the image center are determined and/or evaluated.
However, Nahum teaches wherein at least one of the following applies: i) at the at least two different zoom positions, in each case at least one image of a specified calibration object, which has known features, is captured such that high-contrast regions are recognizable in the image representation (col. 3, lines 1-6, The FS reference object comprises a set of focus state (FS) reference regions that include a contrast pattern and that have respective known reference region image locations in reference object images and that are fixed at different respective reference region focus positions relative to the reference object optics configuration); and, ii) only contrast values in a specified region of the image center are determined and/or evaluated (N/A).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Zhang and Grigat to incorporate the teachings of Nahum to image a reference object in order to properly and easily calibrate focus without autofocus hunting.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang (CN 1831625 A) in view of Grigat et al. (DE 10249025 A1) and Ja (U.S. Patent No. 11714273 B1).
Regarding claim 19, Zhang teaches a method for performing at least one of adjusting, calibrating and monitoring a focus value of a device (¶2, This invention relates to image capturing, and more particularly to a focusing method for an image capturing device) an image capture device (¶2, This invention relates to image capturing, and more particularly to a focusing method for an image capturing device) and a zoom system (¶11, the lens focus step adjustment method of the present invention is used in a digital imaging device, which includes a pair of focusing lenses), wherein the device is configured to be operated in at least two different zoom positions (¶26, In step 22, the calibration procedure is based on the concept that "the higher the lens resolution, the larger the image file it captures"… during the calibration process, the focusing lens is set in several different positions, and a focus image is taken at each different position), the method comprising the steps of: for at least two different zoom positions, capturing at least one image of a specified object via the image capture device (¶26, during the calibration process, the focusing lens is set in several different positions, and a focus image is taken at each different position; and ¶5, if the camera lens has poor telephoto light intake, it may cause the camera to make mistakes when focusing on distant objects); via the at least one captured image, determining a plurality of contrast values depending on the focus value (¶25, The focusing procedure in step 21 sets the focusing lens at several different positions and calculates a contrast value corresponding to each different position); and, via the determined contrast values for the at least two zoom positions, ascertaining at least one desired value for at least one of the following: i) at least one parameter for adjusting the focus value of the surgical microscope; and, ii) at least one parameter for calibrating the focus value of the surgical microscope (¶24, Adjust the position of the focusing lens according to the number of adjustment steps; ¶29, during subsequent focusing, after the focusing process is completed (at which point the focusing lens is in a position with the best contrast value), adjusting the position of the focusing lens by one adjustment step can adjust the lens to the optimal resolution; and see figure 3 and ¶28 for further details). However, Zhang fails to explicitly teach wherein the device is a surgical microscope including at least one objective; and a computer-implemented method comprising instructions which, when the program is executed by a computer, cause the latter to carry out the method.
However, Grigat teaches wherein the device is a surgical microscope including at least one objective (¶26, To correct errors, a calibration is first performed, whereby the operating microscope is described, as mentioned, as a two-pinhole camera on the imaging side. Calibration is performed for all zoom and focus levels; and ¶22, As is well known, a stereo light microscope can either consist of two convergent monocular single-objective microscopes or comprise two decentered optical channels behind a common front lens. Due to design-specific advantages, surgical microscopes are almost exclusively built as so-called Common Main Objectives (CMO) microscopes).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zhang to incorporate the teachings of Grigat to perform focusing/zoom operations on a surgical microscope because, in order to perform accurate surgical interventions on the human brain, spine, etc., proper focus is required. Additionally, it would have been obvious to include an objective as microscopes commonly include an objective. However, the combination fails to explicitly teach a computer-implemented method comprising instructions which, when the program is executed by a computer, cause the latter to carry out the method.
However, Ja teaches a computer-implemented method comprising instructions which, when the program is executed by a computer, cause the latter to carry out the method (col. 5, lines 1-8, The controller 116 may be a computer, including various components such as a processor, input/output ports, an electronic storage medium for executable programs and calibration values, random access memory, a data bus, etc. The electronic storage medium can be programmed with computer readable data representing instructions executable by the processor for performing the methods described herein).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Zhang and Grigat to incorporate the teachings of Ja to further include a computer implemented program to perform the method in order to perform the focusing method automatically and quickly.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 11 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 11, the prior art of record individually or combined fails to teach the method of claim 1 as claimed, wherein the surgical microscope has a stereoscopic optical system, wherein the stereoscopic optical system has a first optical path and at least one further optical path and more specifically in combination with at least one desired value and/or calibration data for the first optical path is ascertained and transferred to the at least one further optical path.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Schwarz et al. (USPGPub 20150346471 A1): Schwarz teaches a stereoscopic microscope with a focus adjusting system (see abstract, ¶6, and ¶16).
Chan (USPGPub 20210333533 A1): Chan teaches a self-calibrating microscope that captures a plurality of reference images along a plurality of z-positions.
Hu et al. (USPGPub 20200249421 A1): Hu teaches the measurement of a tilted object plane (see figures 33 and 34).
Feng (USPGPub 20200028996 A1): Feng teaches imaging a reference object to determine contrast values (see paragraph 90).
Nara et al. (JP 2016170182 A): Nara teaches an auto-focus method for medical use using contrast images.
Mallik et al. (WO 2013131603 A1): Mallik teaches determining the distance between a camera and an object using both zoom and focus.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIN R GARBER whose telephone number is (571)272-4663. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 0730-1730.
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, Georgia Y Epps can be reached at (571)272-2328. 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.
/ERIN R GARBER/Examiner, Art Unit 2878
Prosecution Insights