www.uspto.gov
`
`UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
`
`17/755,684
`
`05/05/2022
`
`DAISUKE KIKUCHI
`
`SYP334105USOLINT
`
`7550
`
`CHIP LAW GROUP/INT
`505 N. Lake Shore Drive
`Suite 250
`CHICAGO, HL 6061
`
`AUGUSTIN, MARCELLUS
`
`2682
`
`aN
`
`NOTIFICATION DATE
`
`DELIVERY MODE
`
`11/20/2024
`
`ELECTRONIC
`
`Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
`
`The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
`
`Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
`following e-mail address(es):
`
`docketing @chiplawgroup.com
`eofficeaction @appcoll.com
`
`PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
`
`

`

`
`
`Disposition of Claims*
`1-20 is/are pending in the application.
`)
`Claim(s)
`5a) Of the above claim(s) _ is/are withdrawn from consideration.
`C) Claim(s)
`is/are allowed.
`Claim(s) 1-7 and 15-20 is/are rejected.
`Claim(s) 8-14 is/are objectedto.
`C) Claim(s
`are subject to restriction and/or election requirement
`)
`* If any claims have been determined allowable, you maybeeligible to benefit from the Patent Prosecution Highway program at a
`participating intellectual property office for the corresponding application. For more information, please see
`http:/Awww.uspto.gov/patents/init_events/pph/index.jsp or send an inquiry to PPHfeedback@uspto.gov.
`
`) ) ) )
`
`Application Papers
`10)( The specification is objected to by the Examiner.
`11)M The drawing(s) filed on 05/05/2024 is/are: a)¥) accepted or b)() objected to by the Examiner.
`Applicant may not request that any objection to the drawing(s) be held in abeyance. See 37 CFR 1.85(a).
`Replacement drawing sheet(s) including the correction is required if the drawing(s) is objected to. See 37 CFR 1.121(d).
`
`Priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119
`12)(¥) Acknowledgment is made of a claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119(a)-(d)or (f).
`Certified copies:
`c)() None ofthe:
`b)( Some**
`a) All
`1.@) Certified copies of the priority documents have been received.
`2.1.) Certified copies of the priority documents have been received in Application No.
`3.1.) Copies of the certified copies of the priority documents have been receivedin this National Stage
`application from the International Bureau (PCT Rule 17.2(a)).
`*“ See the attached detailed Office action for a list of the certified copies not received.
`
`Attachment(s)
`
`1)
`
`Notice of References Cited (PTO-892)
`
`Information Disclosure Statement(s) (PTO/SB/08a and/or PTO/SB/08b)
`2)
`Paper No(s)/Mail Date
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`
`3)
`
`4)
`
`(LJ Interview Summary (PTO-413)
`Paper No(s)/Mail Date
`(Qj Other:
`
`PTOL-326 (Rev. 11-13)
`
`Office Action Summary
`
`Part of Paper No./Mail Date 20241114
`
`Application No.
`Applicant(s)
`17/755,684
`KIKUCHI et al.
`
`Office Action Summary Art Unit|AIA (FITF)StatusExaminer
`MARCELLUS AUGUSTIN
`2682
`Yes
`
`
`
`-- The MAILING DATEof this communication appears on the cover sheet with the correspondence address --
`Period for Reply
`
`A SHORTENED STATUTORYPERIOD FOR REPLYIS SET TO EXPIRE 3 MONTHS FROM THE MAILING
`DATE OF THIS COMMUNICATION.
`Extensionsof time may be available underthe provisions of 37 CFR 1.136(a). In no event, however, may a reply betimely filed after SIX (6) MONTHSfrom the mailing
`date of this communication.
`If NO period for reply is specified above, the maximum statutory period will apply and will expire SIX (6) MONTHSfrom the mailing date of this communication.
`-
`- Failure to reply within the set or extended period for reply will, by statute, cause the application to become ABANDONED (35 U.S.C. § 133).
`Any reply received by the Office later than three months after the mailing date of this communication, evenif timely filed, may reduce any earned patent term
`adjustment. See 37 CFR 1.704(b).
`
`Status
`
`1) Responsive to communication(s) filed on 05/05/2022.
`C} A declaration(s)/affidavit(s) under 37 CFR 1.130(b) was/werefiled on
`
`2a)() This action is FINAL. 2b)¥)This action is non-final.
`3) An election was madeby the applicant in responseto a restriction requirement set forth during the interview
`on
`; the restriction requirement and election have been incorporated into this action.
`4)(2) Since this application is in condition for allowance except for formal matters, prosecution as to the merits is
`closed in accordance with the practice under Exparte Quayle, 1935 C.D. 11, 453 O.G. 213.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/755,684
`Art Unit: 2682
`
`Page 2
`
`Notice ofPre-AIA or AIA Status
`
`1.
`
`The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined
`
`underthefirst inventorto file provisions of the AIA.
`
`2.
`
`The filed IDS of 05/05/2022 has been received and considered.
`
`Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
`
`Please refer to the action below.
`
`ExaminerNotes
`
`3.
`
`The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable
`
`interpretation using the plain meaningof the claim lan guagein light of the
`
`specification as it would be understood by one of ordinaryskill in theart.
`
`However, the claimed subject matter, not the specification, is the measure of the
`
`invention.
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
`
`4.
`
`35 U.S.C. 101 readsas follows:
`
`Whoeverinventsor discovers any new and useful process, machine,
`
`manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/755,684
`Art Unit: 2682
`
`Page 3
`
`thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and
`
`requirementsofthistitle.
`
`5.
`
`Claims 1-5, and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the
`
`claimed inventionis directed to a judicial exception (i.e., alaw of nature, a natural
`
`phenomenon,or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
`
`Independentclaims 1, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because
`
`the claimed inventionis directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
`
`The independentclaimsrecite: an information processing device; a generation
`
`method of causing a computer; anda generation program for causing a computer.
`
`Regarding claim | (claim | being the representative claim) recites a process
`
`and methodfor that acquires an input imageserving as an intraoperative image and
`
`generates an output image based on whetherthe input image includes an
`
`intraoperatively generated matter or not.
`
`That is other than reciting (in claim 1) the information processing device, the
`
`claimed invention amounts to a “mental process” grouping because it requires a
`
`generated output image based on whetherthe input image includes an
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/755,684
`Art Unit: 2682
`
`Page 4
`
`intraoperatively detected smoke or mist generated matter or not from the detected
`
`generated input image; moreover, the recited acquired input image and the
`
`generated output image are simple enoughthatit can be practically performed in
`
`the human mind. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection HI.B. Concepts performed
`
`in the human mindhavebeen identified in the 2019 PEG as an exemplarin the
`
`“Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas. For the reasons above,the claims do
`
`not amountto significantly more than an abstract idea. Even when considered in
`
`combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to apply an
`
`exception and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an
`
`inventive concept and therefore, the claimsare not patent-eligible.
`
`This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In
`
`particular, claim | recites the additional elements of generates an output image
`
`based on whetherthe input imageincludes an intraoperatively generated matter or
`
`not.
`
`These additional elements are not exclusively defined by the applicant and are
`
`recited at ahigh-level of generality (1.e., a generic computer componentfor
`
`detecting alteration to computer execution modules or system) such that they
`
`amountto no more than mereinstructions to apply the exception using a generic
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/755,684
`Art Unit: 2682
`
`Page 5
`
`computer component. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements
`
`do notintegrate the abstract idea intoa practical application becauseit does not
`
`impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed
`
`to an abstractidea.
`
`The claims do notinclude additional elements that are sufficient to amountto
`
`significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to
`
`integration of the abstract idea intoa practical application, the additional element
`
`of generates an output image based on whetherthe input image includes an
`
`intraoperatively generated matter or not, to perform the noted steps amounts to no
`
`more than mereinstructions to apply the exception using a generic computer
`
`component. Mereinstructions to apply an exception using a generic computer
`
`component cannotprovide an inventive concept (“significantly more’).
`
`Claims 2-5 are further rejected and their additional elements do notintegrate
`
`the abstract idea intoa practical application because they do not impose any
`
`meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Those claimsas well are directed
`
`to an abstract idea.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/755,684
`Art Unit: 2682
`
`Page 6
`
`Dependent claims 6-18 are not rejected as they include additional elements
`
`of further “eliminates influence ofthe smokeor the mistfrom an entirety of the
`
`output image”or “generates aparameter used in a smoke removalprocess based
`
`on the determinationresult ofthe determination unit, wherein the smoke-removal
`
`processing unit generates, based on the parameter, a smoke-removed image
`
`obtained by removing the smokefrom the input image”, thereby they integrate the
`
`abstract idea into a practical application. Those claimsare not directed to an
`
`abstract idea.
`
`Furthermore, these additional generic hardware elements perform no more
`
`than their basic computer function. Generic computer-implementation of a method
`
`is not ameaningfullimitation that alone can amountto significantly more than an
`
`abstract idea. Moreover, when viewed as a whole with such additional element
`
`considered as an ordered combination, claims modified by adding generic
`
`hardware elements are nothing more than a purely conventional computerized
`
`implementation of an idea in the general field of computer processing and do not
`
`provide significantly more than an abstract idea.
`
`Consequently, the identified additional generic hardware elements taken into
`
`consideration individually and in combinationfail to amountto significantly more
`
`than the abstract idea above.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/755,684
`Art Unit: 2682
`
`Page 7
`
`6.
`
`Claim 20 is further rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed
`
`invention 1s directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do notfall
`
`within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter, because
`
`claim 20 is drawn to a “generation program”.
`
`Furthermore, the specification of page 36 and that of para. 0050-0051 and
`
`0240 cites “[0050] ((Storage Unit 101)) The storage unit 101 is a storage device
`
`which stores the information ofthe latest output image generated by the generation
`
`unit 105, The output image is an image in which smoke and mist has not been
`
`generated (or smoke and mist has been removed). The output image storedin the
`
`storage unit 101 is updated every time a new output image is outputfrom the
`
`generation unit 105. [0051] The storage unit 101 corresponds to a semiconductor
`
`memory element such as a random-access memory (RAM), a read only memory
`
`(ROM), or a flash memory (Flash Memory) or a storage device such as a hard disk
`
`drive (HDD). The storage unit 101 may be either one of a volatile memory anda
`
`non-volatile memory or may use both of them.” and “Moreover, the HDD 1400
`
`stores the generation program according to the present disclosure andthe data in
`
`the storage unit 101. The CPU 1100 reads the program data 1450from the HDD
`
`1400 to execute the data, but may acquire these programsfrom otherdevices via
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/755,684
`Art Unit: 2682
`
`Page 8
`
`the external network 1550 as another example’. Thereby the disclosure indicates
`
`that Applicant intends or implied the instruction maypossibly in acase not be
`
`referred fully as a ‘non-transitory computer-readable storage medium’ which could
`
`include transmission type media, such as wireless or radio waves, etc. The
`
`broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim in light of the specification and
`
`Official Gazette Notice (1251 OG 212, made available February 23, 2010),
`
`concludesthat the claim as a whole coversa transitory signal, which doesnotfall
`
`within the definition of a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter
`
`(in re Nuijten). Therefore, the claim do notfall within a statutory category. In view
`
`of the Official Gazette Notice (1251 OG 212, made available February 23, 2010),
`
`the examiner suggests amending the claimsto recite "a non-transitory computer
`
`readable storage medium", and/or“a program embodied in a non-transitory
`
`computer readable storage medium”.
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
`
`7.
`
`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 inventoror a joint inventor regardsas the invention.
`
`The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph:
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/755,684
`Art Unit: 2682
`
`Page 9
`
`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.
`
`8.
`
`Claim 3 is/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 inventoror a joint inventor,or for pre-
`
`AIA the applicant regardsas the invention.
`
`Regarding dependentclaim 3:
`
`This claim requires “wherein the determination unit determines whether the
`
`input image includes the smokeor the mist or not by furtherusing atype and an
`
`operation status of an electronic device connected to the information processing
`
`device”’.
`
`In relying on the claim’s languages, and that of the disclosure, the
`
`limitations of “using a type and an operation status” of an electronic device
`
`connected to the information processing device as cited above are ambiguous and
`
`unclearin the termsof as to which device the nickname1s referred for. The type
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/755,684
`Art Unit: 2682
`
`Page 10
`
`and the status are simply citedin para. 0252 of the specification but no
`
`specification or definition are noted in the specification. For purpose of
`
`Examination, the Examinerinterprets the type to disclose a type of removal device
`
`used based on detected smoke, mist, or vapor in the inputimage according o the
`
`status information.
`
`The claim as currently understood is rejected as it appearsto lack critical or
`
`essential steps to the practice of the invention which as appearare not included in
`
`the claim(s), furtherrendering the claims ambiguous and unclear, thereby said
`
`claim is rejected as being indefinite and unclearforfailing to particularly point out
`
`and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventorora joint inventor, or for
`
`pre-AIAthe applicant regardsas the invention. Applicant needsto positively recite
`
`the necessary elements, and novel subject matter to more effectively claim the
`
`subject matter which applicant regardsas his invention.
`
`Examiner respectfully advises applicant to review all pending claims and
`
`to positively and particularly point out the claimed subject matter which the
`
`applicant regardsas the invention, in order to expedite the precaution of the
`
`application and shorten the time of examining process.
`
`Accordingly, the claimed subject matter of this application as currently
`
`claimed is unpatentable underthe provisions of 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/755,684
`Art Unit: 2682
`
`Page 11
`
`Therefore, the above claim is rejected under USC 112 second,as best understood
`
`by examineras indicated in this office action above.
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
`
`9.
`
`In the event the determination ofthe status of the application as subject to
`
`AJA 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 anew ground ofrejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale
`
`supporting the rejection, would be the same undereither status.
`
`The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102
`
`that form the basis for the rejections underthis section madein this Office action:
`
`A person shall be entitled to a patent unless —
`
`(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, describedin a printed
`publication,or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the
`public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
`
`(a)(2) the claimed invention wasdescribedin a patent issued under
`section 151, orin an application for patent published or deemed
`published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as
`the case may be, namesanother inventor and waseffectively filed
`before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
`
`10.
`
`Claims 1-4, 6-7, 15-17, and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 as
`
`obvious and unpatentable over the Kim et al. (KR 101385743, Al).
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/755,684
`Art Unit: 2682
`
`Page 12
`
`Regarding claim 1, Kim teachesin at least the Abstract an information
`
`processing device includingageneration unit that acquires an input image serving
`
`as an intraoperative image (the obtained video imageofat least the Abstract and
`
`Figs. 5-7 are further obtained from imagescaptured or acquired as said input image
`
`serving as an intraoperative image targeted for analysis of intraoperatively
`
`generated smoke and water vapor matters generated from a laser surgeryorthe like
`
`by the at least determing unit 320 and imageanalyzerof Figs. 5-7);
`
`and generates an output image based on whetherthe input image includesan
`
`intraoperatively generated matter or not (Figs. 8-9 and the Abstract further cites
`
`applying asmokeor vapor/mistintraoperatively generated matter removal when
`
`the inputted image includessaid generated matter to output said output image
`
`based on whether the input image includessaid intraoperatively generated matter
`
`or not).
`
`Regarding claim 2 (according to claim 1), Kim further teaches wherein further
`
`including a determination unit that determines whether the input image includes
`
`smoke or mist or not (the disclosure of Kim and Figs. 5-7 furtherteaches the image
`
`determining unit 320 “may use the motion information in the surgical image in
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/755,684
`Art Unit: 2682
`
`Page 13
`
`determining the particles” for further determining whether the input image includes
`
`smokeor mist or not).
`
`Regarding claim 4 (according to claim 2), Kim further teaches wherein the
`
`determination unit further determines a generation amountof the smokeor the mist
`
`based on the input image (the disclosure of Kim further teaches the image
`
`determining unit 320 “may use the motion information in the surgical image in
`
`determining the particles. The image determiner 320 may determinethe size and
`
`speed of the moving object”, and “image determiner 320 may use the color and the
`
`ratio of the pixels whosestrong reflection exceeds a predetermined threshold”to
`
`further determine a generation amount of said smokeor the mist based on the input
`
`image).
`
`Regarding claim 6 (according to claim 4), Kim further teaches wherein further
`
`including a smoke-removalprocessing unit that generates a smoke-removed image
`
`obtained by removing the smoke from the input image (Figs. 8-9 further teaches
`
`smoke-removal processing unit 830 that generates a smoke-removed image
`
`obtained by removing the smoke from the input image);
`
`wherein the generation unit generates the output image by using the determination
`
`result, the input image, and the smoke-removed image (Figs. 8-9).
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/755,684
`Art Unit: 2682
`
`Page 14
`
`Regarding claim 7 (according to claim 6), Kim further teaches the smoke-
`
`removal processing unit estimates deterioration of the input image based on the
`
`output image (the priorart usesin the disclosure a histogram function to estimate
`
`deterioration of the inputimagebased on the output image with the smoke and
`
`mist particles); and the input image and generates the smoke-removed image based
`
`on a result of the estimation (Figs. 8-9).
`
`Regarding claim 15 (according to claim 2), Kim further teaches wherein the
`
`generation unit eliminates influence of the smoke or the mist from an entirety of
`
`the output image(Figs. 8-9 further implies a case where the smoke/mist removal
`
`eliminates influence of the smoke or the mist obviously from an entirety of the
`
`output image).
`
`Regarding claim 16 (according to claim 2), Kim further teaches wherein the
`
`generation unit eliminates influence of the smokeor the mist from a partial region
`
`of the output image (Figs. 8-9 further implies a case where the smoke/mist removal
`
`eliminates influence of the smoke or the mist obviously from a partial region of the
`
`output image).
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/755,684
`Art Unit: 2682
`
`Page 15
`
`Regarding claim 17 (according to claim 16), Kim further teaches wherein
`
`wherein the generation unit specifies the partial region based on a position of an
`
`organ or an operation tool specified from the input image and eliminates the
`
`influence of the smokeor the mist from thepartial region of the output image (the
`
`imageoffurther Figs. 8-9 and the Abstract obviously entailsor at least specifies
`
`the partial region based on a position of an organ or the operation tool specified
`
`from the input image and eliminates the influence of the smoke or the mist from
`
`the partial region of the output image).
`
`Regarding claim 19, Kim teachesin at least the Abstract and Fig. 1 a generation
`
`methodof causing a computerto execute a process of acquiring an input image
`
`serving as an intraoperative image (the obtained video imageofat least the
`
`Abstract and Figs. 5-7 are further obtained from imagescaptured or acquired as
`
`said input image serving as an intraoperative image targeted for analysis of
`
`intraoperatively generated smoke and water vapor matters generated from a laser
`
`surgery or the like by the at least determining unit 320 and image analyzerof Figs.
`
`5-7);
`
`and generating an output image based on whetherthe input image includes an
`
`intraoperatively generated matter or not (Figs. 8-9 and the Abstract further cites
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/755,684
`Art Unit: 2682
`
`Page 16
`
`applying asmokeor vapor/mist intraoperatively generated matter removal when
`
`the inputted image includessaid generated matter to output said output image
`
`based on whether the input image includessaid intraoperatively generated matter
`
`or not).
`
`Regarding claim 20, Kim teachesin at least the Abstract and Fig. 1 a generation
`
`program for causing a computer to function as a generation unit that acquires an
`
`input image serving as an intraoperative image(the obtained video imageofat
`
`least the Abstract and Figs. 5-7 are further obtained from imagescaptured or
`
`acquired as said input image serving as an intraoperative image targeted for
`
`analysis of intraoperatively generated smoke and water vapor matters generated
`
`from a laser surgeryor the like by the at least determining unit 320 and image
`
`analyzerof Figs. 5-7); and
`
`generates an output image based on whetherthe input image includes an
`
`intraoperatively generated matter or not (Figs. 8-9 and the Abstract further cites
`
`applying asmokeor vapor/mist intraoperatively generated matter removal when
`
`the inputted image includes said generated matter to output said output image
`
`based on whether the input image includessaid intraoperatively generated matter
`
`or not).
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/755,684
`Art Unit: 2682
`
`Page 17
`
`11.
`
`Claims 1-7, and 15-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 as obvious and
`
`unpatentable over of Chouet al. (US 2016/0239967, A1).
`
`Regarding claim 1, Chou teaches an information processing device including a
`
`generation unit that acquires an input image serving as an intraoperative image (the
`
`obtained video imagesofat least the Abstract, Figs. 4-6, and para. 0050 are further
`
`obtained from imagescaptured or acquired as said input image serving as an
`
`intraoperative imagetargeted for analysis of intraoperatively generated smoke
`
`and/or mist matters generated during a surgery);
`
`and generates an output image based on whetherthe input image includesan
`
`intraoperatively generated matter or not (para. 0031 and 0035-0037 and Figs. 4-6
`
`further cites applying a smokeor vapor/mist intraoperatively generated matter
`
`removalprocess when the inputted image includessaid generated matter to output
`
`subsequently said output image based on whetherthe input image includessaid
`
`intraoperatively generated matter or not).
`
`Regarding claim 2 (accordingto claim 1), Chou further teaches wherein further
`
`including a determination unit that determines whether the input image includes
`
`smoke or mist or not (Abstract and para. 0055).
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/755,684
`Art Unit: 2682
`
`Page 18
`
`Regarding claim 3 (according to claim 2), Chou further teaches wherein the
`
`determination unit determines whether the input image includes the smokeor the
`
`mist or not by further using a type and an operation status of an electronic device
`
`connected to the information processing device (based on the detected
`
`intraoperatively generated matters of smoke or mist, the system either uses a
`
`smoke removal unit or that of a mist removal unit of para. 0035-0037 according to
`
`further an operation status of an electronic device connected to the information
`
`processing device). See para. 0242 of spec, no definition of the elec.
`
`Regarding claim 4 (according to claim 2), Chou further teaches wherein the
`
`determination unit further determines a generation amountof the smokeor the mist
`
`based on the input image (Figs. 4, 6 and Abstract).
`
`Regarding claim 5 (according to claim 2), Chou further teaches wherein the
`
`determination unit further determines a ratio of the smoketo the mist based on the
`
`input image (para. 0004 cites an input image deterioration which in a case may
`
`include smoke or mist generated matters, and further in at least para. 0062-0063
`
`the system estimates the ratio of detected smoke in the image which obviously may
`
`entail according to one skill in theart a ratio of the smoke to obviously the mist or
`
`the like based on the input image).
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/755,684
`Art Unit: 2682
`
`Page 19
`
`Regarding claim 6 (accordin gto claim 4), Chou further teaches wherein further
`
`including a smoke-removalprocessing unit that generates a smoke-removed image
`
`obtained by removing the smokefrom theinput image (para. 0035-0037);
`
`wherein the generation unit generates the output image by using the determination
`
`result, the input image, and the smoke-removed image (the system generates the
`
`output image by comparingin at least para. 0031-0037 and 0053-0055 comparison
`
`of a current frame suchas in a case the smoke-removedimageafter the removal
`
`processto other image framesand data such as obviously determination result, the
`
`input image).
`
`Regarding claim 7 (according to claim 6), Chou further teaches the smoke-
`
`removal processing unit estimates deterioration of the inputimagebased on the
`
`output image (Chou further teaches in para. 0031-0032 and 0053-0055 the
`
`estimation of the visible partial region of the image,further using a histogram to
`
`estimate deterioration of the input image based on the output image with the smoke
`
`and mist particles); and the input imageand generates the smoke-removed image
`
`based on a result of the estimation (para. 0035-0037).
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/755,684
`Art Unit: 2682
`
`Page 20
`
`Regarding claim 15 (according to claim 2), Chou further teaches wherein the
`
`generation unit eliminates influence of the smoke or the mist from an entirety of
`
`the outputimage(Abstract further implies a case where the smoke/mist removal
`
`eliminates influence of the smoke or the mist obviously from an entirety of the
`
`output image).
`
`Regarding claim 16 (according to claim 2), Chou further teaches wherein the
`
`generation unit eliminates influence of the smokeor the mist from a partial region
`
`of the outputimage (Para. 0015 further cites a case where the smoke/mist removal
`
`eliminates influence of the smokeor the mist from a partial region of the output
`
`image).
`
`Regarding claim 17 (according to claim 16), Chou further teaches wherein
`
`wherein the generation unit specifies the partial region based on a position of an
`
`organ or an operation tool specified from the input image and eliminates the
`
`influence of the smokeor the mist from thepartial region of the output image (the
`
`image of further para. 0003 and 0014-0017 further entails or at least specifies the
`
`partial region based on a position of an organ or the operation tool specified from
`
`the input image and eliminates further in para. 0035-0037the influence of the
`
`smoke or the mist from the partial region of the output image).
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/755,684
`Art Unit: 2682
`
`Page 21
`
`Regarding claim 18 (according to claim 16), Chou further teaches wherein the
`
`generation unit specifies the partial region based on a point-of-view position of a
`
`user and eliminates the influence of the smoke or the mist from the partial region
`
`of the outputimage(the userofat least para. 0080 may weara voice enabled input
`
`device which understoodly adapted to receive specification of a region or partial
`
`region based on a point-of-view position of a user and the userof further in para.
`
`0086 capable of eliminating the influence of the smokeor the mist from the partial
`
`region of the output image).
`
`Regarding claim 19, Chou teaches a generation method of causing a computer
`
`to executea process of acquiring an input image serving as an intraoperative image
`
`(the obtained video images ofat least the Abstract and para. 0050 are further
`
`obtained from imagescaptured or acquired as said input image serving as an
`
`intraoperative imagetargeted for analysis of intraoperatively generated smoke and
`
`mist matters generated duringa surgical procedure);
`
`and generating an output image based on whetherthe input image includes an
`
`intraoperatively generated matter or not (para. 0035-0037 further cites applying a
`
`smoke or vapor/mist intraoperatively generated matter removal process when the
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/755,684
`Art Unit: 2682
`
`Page 22
`
`inputted image includes said generated matter to output said output image based on
`
`whether the input image includessaid intraoperatively generated matteror not).
`
`Regarding claim 20, Chou teachesinat least para. 0028, 0106 a generation
`
`program for causing acomputerto function as a generation unit that acquires an
`
`input image servingas an intraoperative image(said program of further para. 0028
`
`and 00106 further configured for obtainingat least video imagesfurtherillustrated
`
`in at least the Abstract, para. 0050 and Figs. 4-6 further including captured or
`
`acquired imagesindicative of said input image serving as an intraoperative image
`
`targeted for analysis of intraoperatively generated smoke and mist matters
`
`generated during a surgical procedure); and
`
`generates an output image based on whetherthe input image includes an
`
`intraoperatively generated matter or not (para. 0035-0037 further cites applying a
`
`smoke or vapor/mist intraoperatively generated matter removal when the inputted
`
`image includes said generated matterto output said output image based on whether
`
`the input image includessaid intraoperatively generated matter or not).
`
`Claim Standings
`
`12.
`
`Claims 8-14 are objected to as being dependent upona rejected base claim,
`
`but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/755,684
`Art Unit: 2682
`
`Page 23
`
`limitations of the base claim and anyintervening claims, and if all outstanding
`
`rejection are overcome.
`
`The prior arts do not appearto teach at least: claim 8. The information
`
`processing device according to claim 7, further including a superposition unitthat
`
`superposes, on the output image, information about the smokeremoved by the
`
`smoke- removal processing unit.
`
`claim 9