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 .
Examiner Remarks
English translation of prior art reference for the rejection WO 2023145448 A1 is attached in this Office Action
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 7, 12, 15-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20210345856 A1 UYAMA; Keisuke et al. (hereafter Uyama), and further in view of WO 2023145448 A1 MURAKITA.
Regarding claim 1, Uyama discloses A medical image capturing system that captures imaging light including a subject image obtained by irradiating a body cavity with illumination light from a light source unit (Fig.2), the medical image capturing system comprising: t capture, via a scope (Fig.1, [33]-[34]), a captured image including an imaging region where the imaging light reaches an imaging surface (Fig.4, [06], [129], surgical field image including a region/frame of interest captured by a camera is the imaging region) and a mask region where the imaging light does not reach the imaging surface ([174]-[175], a mask prevents the source light emitted at patient to set a region of interest ); determine an exposure state on a basis of information of pixels within a predetermined range of the captured image ( [57], [127], pixel value between a maximum and minimum is the pixel information to determinate exposure condition);
Uyama fails to disclose execute processing by setting a type of the mask region as a first mask type determined on a basis of the captured image or a second mask type determined on a basis of an image acquired before the imaging according to the exposure state.
However, MURAKITA teaches execute processing by setting a type of the mask region as a first mask type determined on a basis of the captured image (P.17 para.1st, no rigid is the first mask type determined based on the brightness of an image captured) or a second mask type determined on a basis of an image acquired before the imaging according to the exposure state (Fig.9, P.19 para.3rd, P.21 para.4th, type 4 is the second mask type determined based on the evaluation frames captured in previous step.), the second mask type being determined in a case where it is determined that the scope is connected (P.39 para.1st, TYPE4 is the second mask type).
Therefore 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 medical image capturing system disclosed by Uyama to include the teaching in the same field of endeavor of MURAKITA, in order to reduce erroneous assessments when assessing an observation region, as identified by MURAKITA.
Regarding claim 7, Uyama discloses The medical image capturing system according to claim 1, wherein the circuitry captures the captured image via a focus lens, and the circuitry controls a focus of the focus lens according to a type of the mask region ([182]).
Regarding claim 12, Uyama discloses The medical image capturing system according to claim 1, wherein the circuitry determines that the exposure state is a state in which a type of the mask region cannot be correctly recognized at least in a case where the first mask type and the second mask type are different and an evaluation value based on a pixel value in an evaluation frame in a central portion of the captured image is larger than a predetermined value ([57]-[59], [96], [126]-[127]).
Regarding claim 15, Uyama discloses The medical image capturing system according to claim 14, wherein the circuitry sets, as a condition that the exposure state is a state in which a type of the mask region cannot be correctly recognized, that a pixel value average in an evaluation frame in a central portion of the captured image is a predetermined value or more ([96]-[99]).
Regarding claim 16, Uyama discloses The medical image capturing system according to claim 13, wherein the circuitry sets, as a condition that the exposure state is a state in which a type of the mask region can be correctly recognized, that an evaluation value in the evaluation frame on the mask region side of the two evaluation frames sandwiching the mask boundary of the first mask type is a predetermined value or less ([96]-[99]).
Regarding claim 17, Uyama discloses The medical image capturing system according to claim 13, wherein the circuitry sets the plurality of evaluation frames to be point-symmetric with respect to a corresponding point of an optical axis of the scope ([186]).
Regarding claim 18, Uyama discloses The medical image capturing system according to claim 1, further comprising: wherein the circuitry further is configured to estimates a type of the scope on a basis of a type of the mask region ([96]).
Regarding claim 19, see the rejection for claim 1.
Regarding claim 20, Uyama discloses The medical image capturing system according to claim 1, wherein the circuitry is further configured to: capture the captured image via a focus lens ([53]); MURAKITA teaches set a plurality of evaluation frames such that a mask boundary between the mask region of the first mask type and the imaging region is between the plurality of evaluation frames (P.19 para.1st); set, as a condition that the exposure state is a state in which a type of the mask region cannot be correctly recognized, that an evaluation value in the evaluation frame on the imaging region side of two evaluation frames sandwiching the mask boundary of the first mask type is a predetermined value or more (P.31 para.5th-P.32 para.5th); and stop focus control of the focus lens in a case where the exposure state is determined to be a state in which a type of the mask region cannot be correctly recognized (P.38 para.2nd).
Claim(s) 2-4, 8, 13, 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uyama, in view of MURAKITA, and further in view of WO 2022224423 A1 MATSUMOTO.
Regarding claim 2, MATSUMOTO teaches The medical image capturing system according to claim 1, wherein circuitry determines whether or not it is a state in which a type of the mask region can be correctly recognized (P.12 para.3rd).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention having all the references Uyama, MURAKITA and MATSUMOTO before him/her, to modify the medical image capturing system disclosed by Uyama to include the teaching in the same field of endeavor of MURAKITA and MATSUMOTO, in order to in order to reduce erroneous assessments when assessing an observation region, as identified by MURAKITA, and provide a mask detection device, as identified by MATSUMOTO.
Regarding claim 3, MATSUMOTO teaches The medical image capturing system according to claim 2, wherein in a case where the circuitry determines that the exposure state is a state in which the type of the mask region can be correctly recognized, the circuitry performs processing based on the first mask type (P.14 para.1st-2nd).
Regarding claim 4, MATSUMOTO teaches The medical image capturing system according to claim 2, wherein in a case where the circuitry determines that the exposure state is a state in which a type of the mask region cannot be correctly recognized, the circuitry performs processing based on the second mask type (P.17 para.3rd -4th ).
Regarding claim 8, MATSUMOTO teaches The medical image capturing system according to claim 7, wherein the circuitry stops focus control of the focus lens in a case where the circuitry determines that the exposure state is a state in which a type of the mask region cannot be correctly recognized (P.20 para 2nd-4th ).
Regarding claim 13, MATSUMOTO teaches The medical image capturing system according to claim 1, further comprising: wherein the circuitry is further configured to set a plurality of evaluation frames such that a mask boundary between the mask region of the first mask type and the imaging region is between the plurality of evaluation frames (P.2 para.2, P.13 para.1st-P.14 para.1st ).
Regarding claim 14, MATSUMOTO teaches The medical image capturing system according to claim 13, wherein the circuitry sets, as a condition that the exposure state is a state in which a type of the mask region cannot be correctly recognized, that an evaluation value in the evaluation frame on the imaging region side of the two evaluation frames sandwiching the mask boundary of the first mask type is a predetermined value or more (P.2 para.2).
Claim(s) 5, 6, 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uyama, in view of MURAKITA, and further in view of US 20090149713 A1 Niida.
Regarding claim 5, Niida teaches The medical image capturing system according to claim 1, wherein the circuitry controls a light emission amount of the light source unit according to a detection region corresponding to a type of the mask region ([39]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention having all the references Uyama, MURAKITA and Niida before him/her, to modify the medical image capturing system disclosed by Uyama to include the teaching in the same field of endeavor of MURAKITA and Niida, in order to in order to reduce erroneous assessments when assessing an observation region, as identified by MURAKITA, and provide a endoscope that the insertion portion becomes automatically insertable and can be smoothly inserted, as identified by Niida.
Regarding claim 6, Niida teaches The medical image capturing system according to claim 5, wherein the circuitry reduces the light emission amount by pulse width modulation ( PWM ) control ([47]).
Regarding claim 9, Niida teaches The medical image capturing system according to claim 1, wherein the circuitry t controls a gain of a signal output from the imaging unit according to a type of the mask region ([39]).
Claim(s) 10, 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uyama, in view of MURAKITA, and further in view of US 20180242827 A1 MICHIHATA.
Regarding claim 10, MICHIHATA teaches The medical image capturing system according to claim 1, wherein the circuitry executes gradation conversion of the captured image according to a type of the mask region ([167]-[168]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention having all the references Uyama, MURAKITA and MICHIHATA before him/her, to modify the medical image capturing system disclosed by Uyama to include the teaching in the same field of endeavor of MURAKITA and MICHIHATA, in order to in order to reduce erroneous assessments when assessing an observation region, as identified by MURAKITA, and provide and a endoscope that has improve the convenience by adding a display device, as identified by MICHIHATA.
Regarding claim 11, MICHIHATA teaches The medical image capturing system according to claim 10, wherein in a case where the circuitry determines that the exposed state is a state in which a type of the mask region cannot be correctly recognized, the circuitry executes gradation conversion for widening a dynamic range more than that at a time of the determination ([144]-[147]).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRACY Y. LI whose telephone number is (571)270-3671. The examiner can normally be reached Monday Friday (8:30 AM- 4:30 PM) EST.
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, David Czekaj can be reached at (571) 272-7327. 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.
/TRACY Y. LI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2487
Prosecution Insights