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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 09/22/2026 have been considered but are moot in view of a new ground of rejections.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-6, 8-12, 14, 16-17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maeda et al. (US 2012/0155331 A1 – hereinafter Maeda), Feingold et al. (US 2023/0209012 A1 – hereinafter Feingold).
Regarding claim 1, Maeda discloses a method for transmitting and tracking the transmission of data from a first device to a second device in a series of devices (Fig. 2; [0106] – a method for transmitting and tracking transmission of data from first device N01 to second device H0 in a series of devices N06, N08, N05, N01, and H0), comprising: receiving, at the first device, a data frame ([0105] – device N01 receives collected information by the node devices in order to forward the information to the host device H0); in response to receiving the data frame, generating, at the first device, first device identification data corresponding to the first device ([0105] - generating identification information of device N01 in order to add this information to a RSP2 frame); generating a set of one or more data structures in accordance with a predefined data specification, wherein the set of one or more data structures comprises the data frame, the first device identification data, and respective device identification data corresponding to one or more other devices in the series of devices that transmitted the video frame ([0105]-[0106] – generating collected data, identification information of the first device N01, identification information of other devices, i.e. N06, N08, N05 in order to formulate the frame RSP2); transmitting, by the first device, the set of one or more data structures along with the data to the second device ([0106]; Fig. 10 – transmitting the RSP2 frame to the host device, i.e. after step S504 shown in Fig. 10 – noting that node apparatus 20 in Fig. 10 is the node device N01 as further described at least in [0108]); and determining, by the second device, an order in which the series of devices transmitted the video frame based on the set of one or more data structures ([0114]-[0115]; Fig. 10 – at steps S410-S412).
However, Maeda does not disclose the data as medical imaging data, the data frame including video frame and frame-specific metadata.
Feingold discloses a method for transmitting and tracking the transmission of medical image data from a first device to a second device, comprising: receiving, at the first device, a data frame including a video frame and frame-specific metadata ([0031]; [0037]-[0039] – receiving, at the first device, i.e. source device 130 as in Fig. 1, a video frame i.e. first frame of video data, and metadata for the first frame in order to transmit the data to a reception device 150).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to incorporate the teachings of Feingold into the method taught by Maeda in order to employ the method in sending medical image data, thus enhancing the utility of the method.
Regarding claim 2, Maeda in view of Feingold also discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising: relaying the video frame, by the series of devices, from an initial device of the series of devices to a final device of the series of devices (Fig. 2 – relaying the frame by the series of devices, from an initial device, i.e. node N11, to a final device, i.e. host device H0 in view of Feingold disclosing the video frame).
The motivation for incorporating the teachings of Feingold into the method has been discussed in claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 3, Maeda in view of Feingold also discloses the method of claim 2, wherein Feingold also discloses the series of devices comprises: a camera configured to generate the video frame, a camera control unit, one or more encoders, one or more decoders, an image processing device, a display, or any combination thereof (Fig. 1 – at least a camera configured to generate the video frame).
The motivation for incorporating the teachings of Feingold into the method has been discussed in claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 4, Maeda in view of Feingold also discloses the method of claim 2, wherein the series of devices comprises a third device following the second device (Fig. 2 – since the data is transmitted from one device to another device in a series, the node device N05 can be the first device, device N01 can be the second device, and the host device can be a third device in same manner), the method further comprising: receiving, at the second device, the video frame and the set of one or more data structures ([0105]-[0106] – in view of Feingold disclosing the video frame); generating, at the second device, second device identification data corresponding to the second device ([0105]-[0106] – generating identification information of the second device N01 in order to formulate the frame RSP2); updating, at the second device, the set of one or more data structures based on the second device identification data corresponding to the second device ([0105]-[0106] – updating the data structures in the RSP2 frame to include the identification information of the node); and transmitting, by the second device, the set of one or more data structures along with the video frame to the third device ([0106]; Fig. 10 – transmitting the RSP2 frame to the host device, i.e. after step S504 shown in Fig. 10 – noting that node apparatus 20 in Fig. 10 is the node device N01 as further described at least in [0108]).
Regarding claim 5, Maeda in view of Feingold also discloses the method of claim 4, wherein updating the set of one or more data structures comprises: generating a new data structure comprising the second device identification data corresponding to the second device ([0105]– generating new data structure comprising the identification information of the second device, i.e. N01); and adding the new data structure to the set of one or more data structures ([0105]-[0106] – adding the data structure comprising the identification information N01 to the frame).
Regarding claim 6, Maeda in view of Feingold also discloses the method of claim 4, wherein updating the set of one or more data structures comprises: reading the set of one or more data structures ([0103] – reading the RSP2 frame transmitted from node N05); and adding the second device identification data corresponding to the second device to a field of the set of one or more data structures ([0105] – adding the data structure comprising the identification information of the device N01 to the RSP2 frame).
Regarding claim 8, Maeda in view of Feingold also discloses the method of claim 2, wherein Feingold also discloses analyzing the video frame using a machine-learning model based on the set of one or more data structures ([0074]; [0094]; [0099]; [0130]).
The motivation for incorporating the teachings of Feingold into the method has been discussed in claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 9, Maeda in view of Feingold also discloses the method of claim 1, wherein Feingold also discloses the set of one or more data structures comprises one or more InfoFrame data structures defined by the predefined data specification (Figs. 2-3; [0076]-[0083] – comprising one or more InfoFrame data structures defined by HDMI specification).
The motivation for incorporating the teachings of Feingold into the method has been discussed in claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 10, Maeda in view of Feingold also discloses the method of claim 1, wherein Feingold also discloses the set of one or more data structures is transmitted during a blanking period during transmission of the video frame ([0132]).
The motivation for incorporating the teachings of Feingold into the method has been discussed in claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 11, Maeda in view of Feingold also discloses the method of claim 1, wherein Feingold also discloses the video frame is acquired by a camera (Fig. 1; [0063]-[0064] – the video frame is acquired by camera 110) and wherein the frame-specific metadata comprises: one or more parameters of the camera, wherein the one or more parameters of the camera comprise: a gain parameter, an exposure parameter, an uptime parameter, a brightness parameter, a zoom parameter, an imaging mode parameter, a light pulse duration parameter, quaternion data, orientation data, a pitch angle, a roll angle, a raw angle, camera motion data, or any combination thereof ([0065]; [0069] – at least analog and/or digital gain, exposure duration, imaging mode parameters such as digital gain, gamma curves, white balance offsets, etc.).
The motivation for incorporating the teachings of Feingold into the method has been discussed in claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 12, Maeda in view of Feingold also discloses the method of claim 1, wherein Feingold also discloses the frame-specific metadata comprises data related to one or more user inputs ([0065] – metadata regarding user operating the endoscope such as orientation and rotation of the camera).
The motivation for incorporating the teachings of Feingold into the method has been discussed in claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 14, Maeda in view of Feingold also discloses the method of claim 1, wherein Feingold also discloses the frame-specific metadata comprises data related to an endoscope ([0064]-[0065] – orientation, rotation, acceleration related to the endoscope).
The motivation for incorporating the teachings of Feingold into the method has been discussed in claim 1 above.
Claim 16 is rejected for the same reason as discussed in claim 1 above in view of Maeda in view of Feingold also disclosing a system for transmitting and tracking the transmission of medical image data from a first device to a second device (Fig. 2; Figs. 5-6 – a system comprising a host device and a series of node devices for transmitting and tracking the data, which, in view of Maeda, is medical image data, from a node device N01 to the host device H0), comprising: one or more processors (Figs. 5-6 – processor 102 and processors 202), a memory (Figs. 5-6 – memories of the devices), and one or more programs, wherein the one or more programs are stored in the memory ([0068]; [0070]; [0117] – software programs stored in memories of devices) and configured to be executed by the one or more processors ([0068]; [0070]; [0117] – to be executed by processor 102 and processors 202 shown in Figs. 5-6), the one or more programs including instructions for performing the recited steps (see the discussion of claim 1 above).
Claim 17 is rejected for the same reason as discussed in claim 2 above.
Claim 19 is rejected for the same reason as discussed in claim 10 above.
Claim 20 is rejected for the same reason as discussed in claim 1 above in view of Maeda also disclosing a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium ([0068]; [0070]; [0117] – memories of the devices H0 to N11 as shown in Fig. 2) storing one or more programs ([0068]; [0070]; [0117] – storing software programs) for transmitting and tracking the transmission of medical image data from a first device to a second device (see discussion of claim 1 above), the one or more programs comprising instructions, which when executed by one or more processors of an electronic device having a display ([0115] – when executed by processor 102 of the host device having a display to display the collected the processed node related information), cause the electronic device to perform the recited steps (performing the steps of the method as discussed in claim 1 above).
Claims 7 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maeda and Feingold as applied to claims 1-6, 8-12, 14, 16-17, and 19-20 above, and further in view of Morishita (US 2024/0203090 A1 – hereinafter Morishita).
Regarding claim 7, see the teachings of Maeda and Feingold as discussed in claim 1 above. However, Maeda and Feingold do not disclose identifying an error in the video frame; and determining where the error originated based on the set of one or more data structures.
Morishita discloses identifying an error in a video frame (Fig. 3; [0068]; [0191] – identifying an error in luminance range of a video frame); and determining where the error originated based on a set of one or more data structures ([0070]-[0074]; Fig. 3 – at least determining the error originated from incorrect signal transmission).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to incorporate the teachings of Morishita into the method taught by Maeda and Feingold in order to process the video frame correctly.
Claim 18 is rejected for the same reason as discussed in claim 7 above.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maeda and Feingold as applied to claims 1-6, 8-12, 14, 16-17, and 19-20 above, and further in view of Qu et al. (US 2016/0241829 A1 – hereinafter Qu).
Regarding claim 13, see the teachings of Maeda and Feingold as discussed in claim 1 above. However, Maeda and Feingold do not disclose the frame-specific metadata comprises one or more checksum values associated with the video frame, wherein at least one checksum value of the one or more checksum values is specific to a color component of the video frame.
Qu discloses frame-specific metadata comprises one or more checksum values associated with a video frame ([0133] – one or more CRC values associated with a video frame as further described at least in [0140]-[0141]), wherein at least one checksum value of the one or more checksum values is specific to a color component of the video frame ([0032]; [0140]-[0141] – at least one checksum value is specific to reference code values to mapped chroma or color channel pixel values).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to incorporate frame-specific metadata comprising one or more checksum values taught by Qu into the frame-specific metadata taught by Maeda and Feingold to enhance the quality of display processing by the sink device (Qu: [0151]-[0152]).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maeda and Feingold as applied to claims 1-6, 8-12, 14, 16-17, and 19-20 above, and further in view of Esaki et al. (US 2023/0197031 A1 – hereinafter Esaki).
Regarding claim 15, see the teachings of Maeda and Feingold as discussed in claim 1 above. However, Maeda and Feingold do not disclose the frame-specific metadata comprises data indicative of a quality of the video frame, wherein the quality of the video frame is based on blurriness of the video frame, one or more artifacts in the video frame, brightness of the video frame, contrast of the video frame, or a weighted combination thereof.
Esaki discloses frame-specific metadata comprises data indicative of a quality of a video frame, wherein the quality of the video frame is based on blurriness of the video frame, one or more artifacts in the video frame, brightness of the video frame, contrast of the video frame, or a weighted combination thereof ([0086] – frame-specific metadata comprises data indicative of at least brightness of the video frame).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to incorporate the teachings of Esaki into the frame-specific metadata in the method taught by Maeda and Feingold so that the information can be used to process the video frame properly.
References Considered as Relevant but not Cited in Rejections
1) Ji et al. (US 2016/0234753 A1 – hereinafter Ji) teaches a method for transmitting and tracking data from a first device to a second device in a series of devices, in which the first device in response to receiving a data packet 216, generating data to transmit it to a second device, i.e. the collector node (Fig. 2; [0032]). However, Ji is silent about adding an identifier corresponding to the first device, i.e. the relay node, to the message. In [0030], Ji states adding related identifiers without specifying which identifiers they are.
2) Cozza et al. (US 2022/0103456 A1 – hereinafter Cozza) provides teachings similar to Maeda above. Specifically, Cozza discloses transmitting a device presence message (DP message) along a path including a series of devices. A current device in response to receiving a message, inserting its own ID into the message ([0038]). Compared to Maeda, the message taught by Cozza does not include a field for data (Figs. 4A-4C, 5-6) while Maeda teaches the message is transmitted in response to the host device making a request for information collection ([0108]); and a device in the series can add its data into a data field (Fig. 7), which is suitable to be combined with Feingold to include a video frame data and associated metadata in this field.
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 HUNG Q DANG whose telephone number is (571)270-1116. The examiner can normally be reached IFT.
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, Thai Q Tran can be reached at 571-272-7382. 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.
/HUNG Q DANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2484
Prosecution Insights