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
Claims 1-17 filed on 08/12/2025 are pending.
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 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 of this title, 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.
Claims 1-3, 12-13 and 15-17 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishikawa (“Ishikawa”) [U.S Patent Application Pub. 2022/0287549 A1] in view of Takahashi et al. (“Takahashi”) [US 2017/0303770 A1]
Regarding claim 1, Ishikawa meets the claim limitations as follows:
An endoscopic image processing device comprising one or more processors (i.e. ‘100’) [Fig. 1, 2: para. 0029, 0046: ‘controller 14’], the one or more processors being configured to:
acquire a first signal related to an image with a first condition (e.g., ‘reflected light’ or ‘a visible light image 42’) [Fig. 2, 4; para. 0036, 0039, 0041, 0048: ‘to detect visible light (reflected light) reflected from the cancer patient 200’; ‘generate the visible light image 42’];
acquire a second signal related to an image with a second condition different from the first condition (e.g., ‘fluorescence’ or ‘florescence distribution image 41’) [Fig. 2, 3; para. 0029, 0036, 0041-0043: ‘display the fluorescence distribution image 41’; ‘the fluorescence generated by the fluorescent substance 301’];
create a first image from the first signal (e.g., ‘reflected light’ or ‘a visible light image 42’) [Fig. 2, 4; para. 0036, 0039, 0041, 0048: ‘to detect visible light (reflected light) reflected from the cancer patient 200’; ‘generate the visible light image 42’];
create a second image from the second signal (e.g., ‘fluorescence’ or ‘florescence distribution image 41’) [Fig. 2, 3; para. 0029, 0036, 0041-0043: ‘display the fluorescence distribution image 41’; ‘the fluorescence generated by the fluorescent substance 301’];
determine whether visibility of at least a part of the second image is equal to or higher than a second threshold [para. 0060, 0069: ‘a detection of fluorescence intensity at or above a threshold as a sound, and notify the operator such as a doctor of the information about the distribution state of the fluorescence when the fluorescence intensity detected by the fluorescence detector 54 is equal to or more than a preset thresh’], or lower than the second threshold; and
create different notification information (i.e. ‘notify the operator’) [para. 0060, 0069: ‘the information about the distribution state of the fluorescence output’] depending on whether the visibility is equal to or higher than the second threshold, or lower than the second threshold,
wherein the one or more processors create at least one kind of: the notification information
the notification information
Ishikawa does not disclose explicitly the following claim limitations (emphasis added):
wherein the one or more processors create at least one kind of: the notification information for guiding to the second image when the visibility is equal to or higher than the second threshold; or
the notification information for notifying that the second image is not suitable for viewing when the visibility is lower than the second threshold.
However in the same field of endeavor Takahashi discloses the deficient claim as follows:
wherein the one or more processors create at least one kind of: the notification information for guiding to the second image [Fig. 4; para. 0098: ‘it is instructed to display the assist image’] when the visibility is equal to or higher than the second threshold; or
the notification information for notifying that the second image is not suitable [Fig. 7, 4: S22: ‘Display that assist display cannot be performed’] for viewing when the visibility is lower than the second threshold.
Ishikawa and Takahashi are combinable because they are from the same field of microscope/endoscope.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine teachings of Ishikawa and Takahashi as motivation to include instructions for displaying assist image so as to have the same of angle of view as selected image accurately [Takahashi: para. 0091] or for displaying the fluorescence distribution 40 so as to determine whether or not additional treatment is needed after the treatment [Ishikawa: para. 0005].
Regarding claim 2, Ishikawa meets the claim limitations as follows:
The endoscopic image processing device according to claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are configured to: acquire a signal (i.e. ‘fluorescence’) for detection (i.e. detecting cancer) [Fig. 2, 3, 6; para. 0029, 0054-0056, 0060, 0068: ‘a fluorescence distribution state’; ‘how much the drug 300 is accumulated in the body of the cancer patient 200 by observing a fluorescence distribution 40’]; detect a target region based on the signal for detection; and determine whether visibility of the target region in the second image is equal to or higher than the second threshold [para. 0060, 0069: ‘a detection of fluorescence intensity at or above a threshold as a sound, and notify the operator such as a doctor of the information about the distribution state of the fluorescence when the fluorescence intensity detected by the fluorescence detector 54 is equal to or more than a preset thresh’], or lower than the second threshold.
Regarding claim 3, Ishikawa meets the claim limitations as follows:
The endoscopic image processing device according to claim 2, wherein the second signal serves also as the signal for detection, and the one or more processors are configured to detect the target region from the second image (i.e. ‘a fluorescence distribution state’) [Fig. 3, 5, 6; para. 0029, 0054-0056, 0060, 0068: ‘a fluorescence distribution state’; ‘how much the drug 300 is accumulated in the body of the cancer patient 200 by observing a fluorescence distribution 40’].
Regarding claim 12, Ishikawa meets the claim limitations as follows:
The endoscopic image processing device according to claim 2, wherein the target region is a lesion candidate region (e.g. cancer cell 40) [Fig. 3, 5, 6; para. 0029, 0054-0056, 0060-0068: ‘a fluorescence distribution state’; ‘how much the drug 300 is accumulated in the body of the cancer patient 200 by observing a fluorescence distribution 40’].
Regarding claim 13, Ishikawa meets the claim limitations as follows:
The endoscopic image processing device according to claim 2, wherein the one or more processors are configured to synthesize the first image and the second image to create a synthetic image (i.e. combined image 43), and output the synthetic image to a display [Fig. 5, 6; para. 0029, 0054-0056, 0060-0068: ‘a fluorescence distribution state’; ‘how much the drug 300 is accumulated in the body of the cancer patient 200 by observing a fluorescence distribution 40’].
Regarding claim 15, Ishikawa meets the claim limitations as follows:
The endoscopic image processing device according to claim 13, wherein the one or more processors are configured to synthesize the target region in the second image with first image, to create the synthetic image (i.e. combined image 43) [Fig. 5, 6; para. 0029, 0054-0056, 0060-0068: ‘a fluorescence distribution state’; ‘how much the drug 300 is accumulated in the body of the cancer patient 200 by observing a fluorescence distribution 40’].
Regarding claim 16, all claim limitations are set forth as claim 1 in the method form and rejected as per discussion for claim 1.
Regarding claim 17, all claim limitations are set forth as claim 1 in the form of “A non-volatile storage medium that stores a computer program” and rejected as per discussion for claim 1.
Claim 11 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishikawa in view of Takahashi in further view of Friedlander et al. (“Friedlander”) [US 2018/0146839 A1]
Regarding claim 11, Ishikawa in view of Takahashi meets the claim limitations set forth in claim 2.
Ishikawa does not disclose explicitly the following claim limitations (emphasis added):
The endoscopic image processing device according to claim 2, wherein the one or more processors are configured to create an icon indicating a position of the target region, and output the icon along with the first image to a display.
However in the same field of endeavor Friedlander discloses the deficient claim as follows:
wherein the one or more processors are configured to create an icon [para. 0177: ‘an icon, …, superimposed on at least one of the VE and RE images to visually indicate a direction from the final destination, including a visual indication of where … to the ROI’] indicating a position of the target region, and output the icon along with the first image to a display [para. 0177].
Ishikawa, Takahashi and Friedlander are combinable because they are from the same field of microscope/endoscope.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine teachings of Ishikawa, Takahashi and Friedlander as motivation to include icons for individual indication of ‘ROIs’ for ‘continuous guidance of endoscopy’ [para. 0177], for ‘displaying the assist image’ [Takahashi: para. 0012, 0091] or for displaying the fluorescence distribution 40 so as to determine whether or not additional treatment is needed after the treatment [Ishikawa: para. 0005].
Claim 14 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishikawa in view of Takahashi in further view of Sugano et al. (“Sugano”) [US 2015/0042774 A1]
Regarding claim 14, Ishikawa meets the claim limitations set forth in claim 13.
Ishikawa does not disclose explicitly the following claim limitations (emphasis added):
The endoscopic image processing device according to claim 13, wherein the one or more processors are configured to set a synthetic ratio of the first image and the second image, to create the synthetic image.
However in the same field of endeavor Sugano discloses the deficient claim as follows:
wherein the one or more processors are configured to set a synthetic ratio of the first image and the second image, to create the synthetic image [para. 0073-0074: ‘The image synthesis processing portion 331 synthesizes the contour-image signal and the normal-image signal at a predetermined ratio’].
Ishikawa, Takahashi and Sugano are combinable because they are from the same field of microscope/endoscope.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine teachings of Ishikawa, Takahashi and Sugano as motivation to include icons for individual indication of ‘ROIs’ for ‘continuous guidance of endoscopy’ [para. 0177], for ‘displaying the assist image’ [Takahashi: para. 0012, 0091] or for displaying the fluorescence distribution 40 so as to determine whether or not additional treatment is needed after the treatment [Ishikawa: para. 0005].
Allowable Subject Matter
Regarding claim 4, it is 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.
Regarding claim 5, it is 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.
Regarding claim 6, it is 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.
Regarding claim 7, it is 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.
Regarding claim 9, it is 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.
Regarding claim 10, it is 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See form 892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER D LE whose telephone number is (571)270-5382. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Alternate Friday: 10AM-6:30PM.
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, SATH PERUNGAVOOR can be reached on 571-272-7455. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/PETER D LE/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2488
Prosecution Insights