Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
This action is made in response to the amendments/remarks filed on December 31, 2025. This action is made FINAL.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-13, 15-17, and 23-26 are currently pending. Claims 14 and 18-22 are presently cancelled. Claims 1, 8, 15, and 23 have been amended. Claims 25 and 26 have been newly added. Claims 1, 8, and 15 are independent.
Claim Objections
Claim 23 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 7, “…a weight assigned to the least one frame” should read “…a weight assigned to the at least one frame”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 25 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Specifically, in Claims 25 and 26, the limitation “a resolution at which each of the plurality of frames is stored at within the storage remains unchanged as the plurality of frames are retrieved from the storage to generate the moving visual media” recites elements without support in the original disclosure (i.e., introduces new matter). The specification lacks support for a resolution at which each of the plurality of frames is stored at within the storage remains unchanged as the plurality of frames are retrieved from the storage to generate the moving visual media. Therefore, this limitation is new matter. See MPEP 608.04.
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.
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.
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 1-13 and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reiner (WO2010/051037) in view of Endrikhovski et al. (US2006/0112334) (hereinafter Endrikhovski), further in view of Yachida et al. (US2005/0219642) (Hereinafter Yachida).
Regarding Claim 1, Reiner discloses:
A method for managing image interpretation, the method being performed by an imaging system and comprising (Reiner discloses managing human-computer interaction including interpretation and reporting of medical imaging data – par. 6).
identifying initiation of an interpretation of an image by an interpreter (Reiner discloses the end-user that is tasked with interpretation of the images starts up the program and goes through identification and authentication steps to initiate the image interpretation – par. 140).
obtaining an interpretation data package based on [the interest indications and the identified features of the image] an initial interpretation; and (Reiner discloses the end-user effectively lets the computer drive through the creation of an automated workflow template, which has been created based upon data analysis of the end-user during their initial interpretation of the image – par. 103). (Examiner note: the bracketed limitation is taught by another reference)
generating a moving visual media using the interpretation data package (Reiner discloses that the data from the automated workflow template would effectively move to recreate the normal sequence of eye movements performed on a stationary image – par. 103) and storing the moving visual media and the interpretation data package in a storage of a data processing system (Reiner discloses the storage device may store at least one data file, such as image files, text files, data files, audio files, video files, among other file types – par. 68), the moving visual media comprising a first frame and a second frame among a plurality of frames, each of the plurality of frames having varying degrees of resolutions based on one or more contents of each of the frames (Reiner discloses the portion of the display on the equipment console that is being viewed is depicted in high resolution, while the surrounding area (visible only in peripheral vision) is depicted in lower resolution – par. 87)
as the moving visual media is played to a viewer such that the viewer sees a change in resolution within images projected by the moving visual media as the moving visual media is being played to the viewer (The automated visual display viewing protocol would effectively create a movie in which the end-user's eyes could remain fixed on a central point and the data would effectively move to recreate the normal sequence of eye movements performed on a stationary imaging set. When the radiologists gaze is fixed upon a single image (e.g., upper left hand corner of the screen), the program reacts to this visual data by selectively modifying the imaging sequence of interest. This could consist of the program magnifying the image (switching from 4 on 1 to one on one display format), increasing the spatial resolution of that specific sequence of images, applying a decompression algorithm, or providing user and context-specific image processing – par. 102-103, 165); and
during a subsequent interpretation of the image, displaying, on a display of the imaging system (Reiner discloses the "active" dataset is simultaneously displayed by the program on the right hand computer monitor – par. 143), the moving visual media to direct attention of a subsequent interpreter to a subset of the regions of the image (Reiner discloses that the data from the automated workflow template would effectively move to recreate the normal sequence of eye movements performed on a stationary image – par. 103).
Reiner does not disclose the following that is met by Endrikhovski:
while the interpretation of the image is performed, monitoring: interest indications in regions of the image from the interpreter, and features of the image identified by the interpreter during the interpretation; (Endrikhovski discloses a method of determining the region of interest of the displayed image is to track/monitor an observer's gaze (eye movement and focus) and determine the observer's current fixation position – par. 36).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of managing image interpretation taught by Reiner to include the monitoring of interest indications and features identified by the interpreter as taught by Endrikhovski, since the claimed invention is only a combination of these well-known elements which would have performed the same function in combination as each did separately. Reiner already teaches a method for managing image interpretation, and adding the monitoring of interest indications and features of the image, as taught by Endrikhovski, to the data package would perform the same function of managing image interpretation as taught in Reiner. Therefore, the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2143).
However, Reiner and Endrikhovski do not disclose the following that is met by Yachida:
where an entirety of the first frame comprises a first resolution and an entirety of the second frame comprises a second resolution lower than the first resolution, and the first frame being shown before the second frame (Yachida discloses an imaging system that involves creating a video from image data streams, the first image having a high resolution and the second having a low resolution – see Yachida par. 17 and 72).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of managing image interpretation taught by Reiner and Endrikhovski to include the separate resolutions of each frame and showing them in order (as taught by Yachida) because, since the resolutions and frame rates are different, the amount of data is small which takes up less space in the storage and allows for an inexpensive moving image storage (see Yachida Par. 19).
Regarding Claim 2, Reiner discloses:
The method of claim 1, wherein the moving visual media is a movie that conveys an order of review of the regions of the image during the interpretation of the image by the interpreter (Reiner discloses the automated visual display viewing protocol effectively creates a movie where the data would move to recreate the normal sequence of eye movements performed on a stationary imaging set – par. 103).
Regarding Claim 3, Reiner discloses:
The method of claim 2, wherein generating the moving visual media using the interpretation data package (Reiner discloses that the data from the automated workflow template would effectively move to recreate the normal sequence of eye movements performed on a stationary image – par. 103) comprises: obtaining a view path based on the interest indications in the regions of the image; and (Reiner discloses the visual data derived from the eye tracking can be used to modify the automated workflow template movie and includes scan path directionality based on the length and duration of viewing specific regions of the image - par. 166-167. Reiner also discloses in Fig. 9, a view path based on the regions of interest during an interpretation).
obtaining a focus point along the view path based on the interest indications in the regions of the image; and (Reiner discloses metrics used to create the automated workflow template movie include fixation duration, fixation rate, and frequency of long duration dwells over areas on interest (shown in Fig. 7-9) – par. 167)
Reiner does not disclose the following that is met by Endrikhovski:
generating a frame of the moving visual media based on the view path and focus point (Endrikhovski discloses a local gaze region is defined as a sub-region of the displayed medical image around the gaze position of the observer, and corresponds to a circular (or rectangular) shaped region around the gaze point of the observer. It acts as a spatial windowing function in that only the data within the local gaze region is used to modify the image – par. 36-37. Endrikhovski also discloses that an optional border can be drawn around the enhanced image to help delineate the enhanced image from the original image and/or the unenhanced region of interest – par. 43).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the moving visual media as taught by Reiner to include to local gaze regions (frames) as defined by Endrikhovski because it would improve the visibility and/or acuity of the observed phenomena to the human observer so as to increase the diagnostic performance of the user (Endrikhovski - par. 34).
Regarding Claim 4, Reiner discloses, the method of claim 3, but does not disclose the following that Endrikhovski does:
wherein the frame depicts a portion of a diagnostically relevant landmark designated by the interpreter (Endrikhovski discloses the local region of interest (frame) indicated by the viewer can be used to distinctly and precisely indicate an abnormality to report for subsequent usage – par. 47-48)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the view path and focus point as taught by Reiner to include a frame that depicts the relevant landmarks in the image disclosed in Endrikhovski. By means of establishing an automatic linkage between a radiologist's dictation and the region of interest, diagnostic findings can be readily shared between medical doctors thereby reduce the chance of miscommunication and/or interpretation errors (Endrikhovski par. 48).
Regarding Claim 5, Reiner discloses:
The method of claim 4, wherein the moving visual media depicts an order in which the diagnostically relevant landmark and a second diagnostically relevant landmark were designated by the interpreter (Reiner discloses the automated workflow template movie that moves to recreate the sequence the eye movement performed and shows the order in which several diagnostically relevant areas of interest decided by the interpreter are designated – Fig. 9)
Regarding Claim 6, Reiner discloses:
The method of claim 4, wherein the moving visual media depicts an order in which the interpreter viewed the regions preceding designation of the diagnostically relevant landmark (Fig. 8 of Reiner discloses the forward tracking and backward tracking of the interpreter’s gaze before the relevant landmarks are designated. The movie shows the frames in the order they were viewed in – par. 167)
Regarding Claim 7, Reiner discloses:
The method of claim 3, wherein the view path indicates an order in which the regions of the image were viewed by the interpreter during the interpretation (Fig. 9 of Reiner discloses the view path of the order in which the relevant regions in the image were viewed, which later gets translated into the movie)
Regarding Claim 8, Reiner discloses:
A non-transitory machine-readable medium having instructions stored therein, which when executed by a processor of a data processing system configured as an imaging system, (all or part of the invention may be stored on or read from other computer-readable media, such as secondary storage devices, like hard disks, floppy disks, CD-ROM, a carrier wave received from a network such as the Internet, or other forms of ROM or RAM either currently known or later developed. The stored memory may include at least one sequence of code instruction that may include the program and data structure for performing predetermined operations – par. 63, 83)
cause the processor to perform operations for managing image interpretation, the operations comprising: (Reiner discloses a processor that may access the memory may include at least one sequence of code instruction that may include the program and data structure for performing predetermined operations – par. 63)
identifying initiation of an interpretation of an image by an interpreter (Reiner discloses the end-user that is tasked with interpretation of the images starts up the program and goes through identification and authentication steps to initiate the image interpretation – par. 140).
obtaining an interpretation data package based on [the interest indications and the identified features of the image] an initial interpretation; and (Reiner discloses the end-user effectively lets the computer drive through the creation of an automated workflow template, which has been created based upon data analysis of the end-user during their initial interpretation of the image – par. 103).
generating a moving visual media using the interpretation data package (Reiner discloses that the data from the automated workflow template would effectively move to recreate the normal sequence of eye movements performed on a stationary image – par. 103) and storing the moving visual media and the interpretation data package in a storage of a data processing system (Reiner discloses the storage device may store at least one data file, such as image files, text files, data files, audio files, video files, among other file types – par. 68), the moving visual media comprising a first frame and a second frame among a plurality of frames, each of the frames having varying degrees of resolutions based on one or more contents of each of the frames (Reiner discloses the portion of the display on the equipment console that is being viewed is depicted in high resolution, while the surrounding area (visible only in peripheral vision) is depicted in lower resolution – par. 87)
as the moving visual media is played to a viewer such that the viewer sees a change in resolution within images projected by the moving visual media as the moving visual media is being played to the viewer (The automated visual display viewing protocol would effectively create a movie in which the end-user's eyes could remain fixed on a central point and the data would effectively move to recreate the normal sequence of eye movements performed on a stationary imaging set. When the radiologists gaze is fixed upon a single image (e.g., upper left hand corner of the screen), the program reacts to this visual data by selectively modifying the imaging sequence of interest. This could consist of the program magnifying the image (switching from 4 on 1 to one on one display format), increasing the spatial resolution of that specific sequence of images, applying a decompression algorithm, or providing user and context-specific image processing – par. 102-103, 165); and
during a subsequent interpretation of the image, displaying, on a display of the imaging system (Reiner discloses the "active" dataset is simultaneously displayed by the program on the right hand computer monitor – par. 143), the moving visual media to direct attention of a subsequent interpreter to a subset of the regions of the image (Reiner discloses that the data from the automated workflow template would effectively move to recreate the normal sequence of eye movements performed on a stationary image – par. 103).
Reiner does not disclose the following that is met by Endrikhovski:
while the interpretation of the image is performed, monitoring: interest indications in regions of the image from the interpreter, and features of the image identified by the interpreter during the interpretation; (Endrikhovski discloses a method of determining the region of interest of the displayed image is to track/monitor an observer's gaze (eye movement and focus) and determine the observer's current fixation position – par. 36). (Examiner’s note, bracketed limitation is taught by another reference).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the machine-readable medium with instructions for managing image interpretation taught by Reiner to include the monitoring of interest indications and features identified by the interpreter as taught by Endrikhovski, since the claimed invention is only a combination of these well-known elements which would have performed the same function in combination as each did separately. Reiner already teaches a computer-readable medium for managing image interpretation, and adding the monitoring of interest indications and features of the image, as taught by Endrikhovski, to the data package would perform the same function of managing image interpretation as taught in Reiner. Therefore, the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2143).
However, Reiner and Endrikhovski do not disclose the following that is met by Yachida:
where an entirety of the first frame comprises a first resolution and an entirety of the second frame comprises a second resolution lower than the first resolution, and the first frame being shown before the second frame (Yachida discloses an imaging system that involves creating a video from image data streams, the first image having a high resolution and the second having a low resolution – see Yachida par. 17 and 72)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of managing image interpretation taught by Reiner and Endrikhovski to include the separate resolutions of each frame and showing them in order (as taught by Yachida) because, since the resolutions and frame rates are different, the amount of data is small which takes up less space in the storage and allows for an inexpensive moving image storage (see Yachida Par. 19).
Regarding Claim 9, Reiner discloses:
wherein the moving visual media is a movie that conveys an order of review of the regions of the image during the interpretation of the image by the interpreter (Reiner discloses the automated visual display viewing protocol effectively creates a movie where the data would move to recreate the normal sequence of eye movements performed on a stationary imaging set – par. 103).
Regarding Claim 10, Reiner discloses:
The non-transitory machine-readable medium of claim 9, wherein generating the moving visual media using the interpretation data package (Reiner discloses that the data from the automated workflow template would effectively move to recreate the normal sequence of eye movements performed on a stationary image – par. 103) comprises (all or part of the invention may be stored on or read from other computer-readable media – par. 83)
obtaining a view path based on the interest indications in the regions of the image; and (Reiner discloses the visual data derived from the eye tracking can be used to modify the automated workflow template movie and includes scan path directionality based on the length and duration of viewing specific regions of the image - par. 166-167. Reiner also discloses in Fig. 9, a view path based on the regions of interest during an interpretation)
obtaining a focus point along the view path based on the interest indications in the regions of the image; and (Reiner discloses metrics used to create the automated workflow template movie include fixation duration, fixation rate, and frequency of long duration dwells over areas on interest (shown in Fig. 7-9) – par. 167)
Reiner does not disclose the following that is met by Endrikhovski:
generating a frame of the moving visual media based on the view path and focus point (Endrikhovski discloses a local gaze region is defined as a sub-region of the displayed medical image around the gaze position of the observer, and corresponds to a circular (or rectangular) shaped region around the gaze point of the observer. It acts as a spatial windowing function in that only the data within the local gaze region is used to modify the image – par. 36-37. Endrikhovski also discloses that an optional border can be drawn around the enhanced image to help delineate the enhanced image from the original image and/or the unenhanced region of interest – par. 43)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the moving visual media as taught by Reiner to include to local gaze regions (frames) as defined by Endrikhovski because it would improve the visibility and/or acuity of the observed phenomena to the human observer so as to increase the diagnostic performance of the user (Endrikhovski - par. 34).
Regarding Claim 11, Reiner discloses, The non-transitory machine-readable medium of claim 10, but does not disclose the following that Endrikhovski discloses:
wherein the frame depicts a portion of a diagnostically relevant landmark designated by the interpreter (Endrikhovski discloses the local region of interest (frame) indicated by the viewer can be used to distinctly and precisely indicate an abnormality to report for subsequent usage – par. 47-48)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the view path and focus point as taught by Reiner to include a frame that depicts the relevant landmarks in the image disclosed in Endrikhovski. By means of establishing an automatic linkage between a radiologist's dictation and the region of interest, diagnostic findings can be readily shared between medical doctors thereby reduce the chance of miscommunication and/or interpretation errors (Endrikhovski par. 48).
Regarding Claim 12, Reiner discloses:
The non-transitory machine-readable medium of claim 11, wherein the moving visual media depicts an order in which the diagnostically relevant landmark and a second diagnostically relevant landmark were designated by the interpreter (Reiner discloses the automated workflow template movie that moves to recreate the sequence the eye movement performed and shows the order in which several diagnostically relevant areas of interest decided by the interpreter are designated – Fig. 9)
Regarding Claim 13, Reiner discloses:
The non-transitory machine-readable medium of claim 11, wherein the moving visual media depicts an order in which the interpreter viewed the regions preceding designation of the diagnostically relevant landmark (Fig. 8 of Reiner discloses the forward tracking and backward tracking of the interpreter’s gaze before the relevant landmarks are designated. The movie shows the frames in the order they were viewed in – par. 167).
Regarding Claim 15, Reiner discloses:
A data processing system configured as an imaging system, comprising: (Reiner discloses a data processing unit to execute the functions of the system – par. 59,71)
a processor; and (Reiner discloses the data processing unit includes a processor to provide client data processing – par. 59)
a memory coupled to the processor to store instructions, which when executed by the processor, cause the processor to perform operations for managing image interpretation, the operations comprising: (Reiner discloses the processor includes a memory with a program that, when executed by the processor, is configured to perform the predetermined operations involved with image interpretation – par. 59, 63).
identifying initiation of an interpretation of an image by an interpreter (Reiner discloses the end-user that is tasked with interpretation of the images starts up the program and goes through identification and authentication steps to initiate the image interpretation – par. 140).
obtaining an interpretation data package based on [the interest indications and the identified features of the image] an initial interpretation; and (Reiner discloses the end-user effectively lets the computer drive through the creation of an automated workflow template, which has been created based upon data analysis of the end-user during their initial interpretation of the image – par. 103).
generating a moving visual media using the interpretation data package (Reiner discloses that the data from the automated workflow template would effectively move to recreate the normal sequence of eye movements performed on a stationary image – par. 103) and storing the moving visual media and the interpretation data package in a storage of a data processing system (Reiner discloses the storage device may store at least one data file, such as image files, text files, data files, audio files, video files, among other file types – par. 68), the moving visual media comprising a first frame and a second frame among a plurality of frames, each of the frames having varying degrees of resolutions based on one or more contents of each of the frames (Reiner discloses the portion of the display on the equipment console that is being viewed is depicted in high resolution, while the surrounding area (visible only in peripheral vision) is depicted in lower resolution – par. 87)
as the moving visual media is played to a viewer such that the viewer sees a change in resolution within images projected by the moving visual media as the moving visual media is being played to the viewer (The automated visual display viewing protocol would effectively create a movie in which the end-user's eyes could remain fixed on a central point and the data would effectively move to recreate the normal sequence of eye movements performed on a stationary imaging set. When the radiologists gaze is fixed upon a single image (e.g., upper left hand corner of the screen), the program reacts to this visual data by selectively modifying the imaging sequence of interest. This could consist of the program magnifying the image (switching from 4 on 1 to one on one display format), increasing the spatial resolution of that specific sequence of images, applying a decompression algorithm, or providing user and context-specific image processing – par. 102-103, 165); and
during a subsequent interpretation of the image, displaying, on a display of the imaging system (Reiner discloses the "active" dataset is simultaneously displayed by the program on the right hand computer monitor – par. 143), the moving visual media to direct attention of a subsequent interpreter to a subset of the regions of the image (Reiner discloses that the data from the automated workflow template would effectively move to recreate the normal sequence of eye movements performed on a stationary image – par. 103).
Reiner does not disclose the following that is met by Endrikhovski:
while the interpretation of the image is performed, monitoring: interest indications in regions of the image from the interpreter, and features of the image identified by the interpreter during the interpretation; (Endrikhovski discloses a method of determining the region of interest of the displayed image is to track/monitor an observer's gaze (eye movement and focus) and determine the observer's current fixation position – par. 36).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the data processing system for managing image interpretation taught by Reiner to include the monitoring of interest indications and features identified by the interpreter as taught by Endrikhovski, since the claimed invention is only a combination of these well-known elements which would have performed the same function in combination as each did separately. Reiner already teaches a data processing unit for managing image interpretation, and adding the monitoring of interest indications and features of the image, as taught by Endrikhovski, to the data package would perform the same function of managing image interpretation as taught in Reiner. Therefore, the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2143).
However, Reiner and Endrikhovski do not disclose the following that is met by Yachida:
where an entirety of the first frame comprises a first resolution and an entirety of the second frame comprises a second resolution lower than the first resolution, and the first frame being shown before the second frame (Yachida discloses an imaging system that involves creating a video from image data streams, the first image having a high resolution and the second having a low resolution – see Yachida par. 17 and 72).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of managing image interpretation taught by Reiner and Endrikhovski to include the separate resolutions of each frame and showing them in order (as taught by Yachida) because, since the resolutions and frame rates are different, the amount of data is small which takes up less space in the storage and allows for an inexpensive moving image storage (see Yachida Par. 19).
Regarding Claim 16, Reiner discloses:
The data processing system of claim 15, wherein the moving visual media is a movie that conveys an order of review of the regions of the image during the interpretation of the image by the interpreter (Reiner discloses the automated visual display viewing protocol effectively creates a movie where the data would move to recreate the normal sequence of eye movements performed on a stationary imaging set – par. 103).
Regarding Claim 17, Reiner discloses:
The data processing system of claim 16, wherein generating the moving visual media using the interpretation data packages (Reiner discloses that the data from the automated workflow template would effectively move to recreate the normal sequence of eye movements performed on a stationary image – par. 103) comprises: (Reiner discloses the data processing unit – par. 59)
obtaining a view path based on the interest indications in the regions of the image; and (Reiner discloses the visual data derived from the eye tracking can be used to modify the automated workflow template movie and includes scan path directionality based on the length and duration of viewing specific regions of the image - par. 166-167. Reiner also discloses in Fig. 9, a view path based on the regions of interest during an interpretation)
obtaining a focus point along the view path based on the interest indications in the regions of the image; and (Reiner discloses metrics used to create the automated workflow template movie include fixation duration, fixation rate, and frequency of long duration dwells over areas on interest (shown in Fig. 7-9) – par. 167)
Reiner does not disclose the following that is met by Endrikhovski:
generating a frame of the moving visual media based on the view path and focus point (Endrikhovski discloses a local gaze region is defined as a sub-region of the displayed medical image around the gaze position of the observer, and corresponds to a circular (or rectangular) shaped region around the gaze point of the observer. It acts as a spatial windowing function in that only the data within the local gaze region is used to modify the image – par. 36-37. Endrikhovski also discloses that an optional border can be drawn around the enhanced image to help delineate the enhanced image from the original image and/or the unenhanced region of interest – par. 43)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the moving visual media as taught by Reiner to include local gaze regions (frames) as defined by Endrikhovski because it would improve the visibility and/or acuity of the observed phenomena to the human observer so as to increase the diagnostic performance of the user (Endrikhovski - par. 34).
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reiner (WO2010/051037) in view of Endrikhovski et al. (US2006/0112334) (hereinafter Endrikhovski), in further view of Yachida et al. (US2005/0219642) (Hereinafter Yachida), and in further view of Tokui et al. (WO 2017213244) (hereinafter Tokui).
Regarding Claim 23, the combination of Reiner and Endrikhovski discloses The method of claim 2, however, the combination of Reiner, Endrikhovski, and Yachida fails to teach the following that is met by Tokui:
wherein the moving visual media comprises at least one pause on at least one of the regions of the image, the at least one pause is constructed by duplicating at least one frame, from among the plurality frames, that is made for the moving visual media that contains the at least one of the regions (Tokui [0028]: For example, a state of "temporary stop" (pause) may be realized by arranging the same frame images by duplication or the like of the frame image; [0077] the output unit (setting unit 12, image generation unit 13) may cut out and output a part of the frame for each frame of the moving image), and
a duration of the at least one pause is based on a weight assigned to the at least one frame, the weight being based on one or more focus points within the at least one frame that are identified by the interpreter (Tokui [0022]: The feature unit extraction unit extracts a feature unit from the input image, which involves generating a saliency map to determine the saliency of portions of the images; [0075] a feature unit detection unit that detects a feature unit from a frame included in the moving image and an output unit (setting unit, image generation unit) that outputs a frame in which the feature unit is detected in the moving image. [0081] the output unit may set at least one of setting for setting the reproduction speed to be lower than a reference reproduction speed serving as a stop or a reference when the feature unit is present in the frame. [0083] the feature unit detection unit obtains a value indicating saliency for each of pixels constituting the frame, and the feature unit detection unit, at least one of weighting to the value such that a feature portion close to a position in the frame of a subject present ahead in the traveling direction of the imaging apparatus is easily detected from the frame and a moving image captured during movement).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the combination of Reiner, Endrikhovski, and Yachida to include the pause function as taught by Tokui because the stop function allows the user to easily recognize the presence of absence of the features being detected (Tokui par. 78).
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reiner (WO2010/051037) in view of Endrikhovski et al. (US2006/0112334) (hereinafter Endrikhovski), in further view of Yachida et al. (US2005/0219642) (Hereinafter Yachida), and in further view of Tokui et al. (WO 2017213244) (hereinafter Tokui), in further view of Chui et al. (US 2006/0041719) (Hereinafter Chui).
Regarding Claim 24, the combination of Reiner, Endrikhovski, Yachida, and Tokui teach the method of claim 23, and Reiner further teaches:
the storage is one of a plurality of a tiered storage system (Reiner [0059]: Further, the client computer 101 may include the input device 104, 300, the image display device 102, and one or more secondary storage devices) implemented using the data processing system (Reiner [0071]: the processor may be a general data processing unit), and each of the plurality of tiered storages comprises a different level of storage performance for storing data (Referring to paragraphs [0067], [0068], and [0072], Reiner discloses several storages that are each capable of storing different levels of data: each entry may include at least a first storage area, or header, that stores the databases or libraries of the image files; the storage device 113 may store at least one data file, such as image files, text files, data files, audio files, video files, among other file types; The server processor 121 may have access to a storage device 128 for storing preferably large numbers of programs 110 for providing various operations to the users)
However, the combination of Reiner, Endrikhovski, and Yachida fails to teach the following that is met by Tokui:
the at least one frame that is duplicated for the at least one pause is stored in the first tiered storage separately from the moving visual media and in a non-duplicated manner (Tokui [0071] discloses that the information (i.e., frames) handled by these devices is temporarily stored in a RAM (Random Access Memory) at the time of processing, then stored in various ROM or HDD such as a read only memory (ROM), and read and corrected by the CPU as necessary).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the combination of Reiner, Endrikhovski, and Yachida to include the pause function and storage as taught by Tokui because the stop function allows the user to easily recognize the presence of absence of the features being detected (Tokui par. 78).
However, the combination of Reiner, Endrikhovski, Yachida, and Tokui does not teach the following that is met by Chui:
where a first tiered storage of the tiered storages comprises a higher storage performance and higher associated storage costs than a second tiered storage of the tiered storages (See Chui Claim 39 and par. 11: the performance characteristics of the first image tier include high availability, reliability and cost),
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the combination of Reiner, Endrikhovski, Yachida, and Tokui to include the performance characteristics of the tiered storage as taught by Chui because the system provides high performance, reliable, yet cost-effective multi-tier data storage capacity for clients whose data storage requirements increase continuously. For example, all data files can be archived, including all print image data files, whose value increases with time. The multi-tier storage system provides the ability to trade-off the average archival cost against the availability of images (See Chui par. 25).
Subject Matter Free of the Prior Art
The following is an examiner’s statement of subject matter free of the prior art: The limitations in Claims 25 and 26 stating: “wherein the plurality of frames making up the moving visual media are stored in the storage of the data processing system, and a resolution at which each of the plurality of frames is stored at within the storage remains unchanged as the plurality of frames are retrieved from the storage to generate the moving visual media” is free of the prior art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 12/31/2025, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-13 and 15-17 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Reiner, Endrikhovski, Yachida, Tokui, and Chui fail to disclose or suggest the limitations in amended claims 1, 8, and 15, particularly "generating a moving visual media using the interpretation data package and storing the moving visual media and the interpretation data package in a storage of a data processing system, the moving visual media comprising a first frame and a second frame among a plurality of frames, each of the frames having varying degrees of resolutions based on one or more contents of each of the frames where an entirety of the first frame comprises a first resolution and an entirety of the second frame comprises a second resolution lower than the first resolution, and the first frame being shown before the second frame as the moving visual media is played to a viewer such that the viewer sees a change in resolution within images projected by the moving visual media as the moving visual media is being played to the viewer." (Emphasis Added). Applicant argues that Yachida does not teach images of varying resolutions being played back as part of the final video, however, Reiner does disclose the moving visual media showing a change in resolution to the viewer (See Reiner paras. [00102], [00103], and [00165]). These paragraphs in Reiner disclose the “movie” in which when the end user is viewing the images on the screen, the program will react and modify the imaging sequence of interest which consists of increasing the resolution of the specific sequence of images. The examiner interprets this as a viewer seeing a change in resolution as they are watching the moving visual media. Therefore, the examiner respectfully disagrees that Reiner, Endrikhovski, Yachida, Tokui, and Chui fail to disclose or suggest these limitations in amended claims 1, 8, and 15.
With respect to amended claim 23, Applicant argues the amended limitation “a duration of the at least one pause is based on a weight assigned to the least one frame, the weight being based on one or more focus points within the at least one frame that are identified by the interpreter” is not disclosed or suggested by Reiner, Endrikhovski, Yachida, Tokui, and Chui. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Tokui paras. [0022], [0075], [0081], and [0083] describe a reference reproduction speed serving as a stop when a feature unit is present in the frame. A feature unit extraction unit extracts a feature from the image being viewed, and generates a saliency map to determine the saliency of portions of the images. An output unit may set at least one of setting for setting the reproduction speed to be lower than a reference reproduction speed serving as a stop, and accordingly, a feature unit detection unit obtains a value indicating saliency for each of the pixel constituting the frame, which determines a weighting of the feature portion in the frame. Therefore, the examiner interprets Tokui to describe the determination of weights for the feature units in the frames, which ultimately is used to determine the speed settings of the video.
Regarding newly added claims 25 and 26, applicant argues the limitations are neither disclosed nor suggested by Reiner, Endrikhovski, Yachida, Tokui, or Chui because all of the cited prior art references are silent with regard to generation of a moving visual media having varying resolutions as the moving visual media is played back to a viewer. As discussed above, Reiner does disclose the generation of a moving visual media having varying resolutions as the moving visual media is played back to a viewer, however, examiner agrees that the new limitations of claims 25 and 26 are neither disclosed nor suggested by Reiner, Endrikhovski, Yachida, Tokui, or Chui. Therefore, claims 25 and 26 are free of the prior art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure:
Cohen-Solal et al. (WO2015/015341 A1) discloses a method of interpreting images and
finding a matching image based on the focus points and time spent looking at areas of
interest in an image.
Raghunath et al.: Mouse cursor movement and eye tracking data as an indicator of
pathologists’ attention when viewing digital whole slide images. This article describes
pathologists interpreting images and determining the accuracy of eye gaze movement with
mouse cursor movement when viewing images.
Claus et al. (US2008/0242968) discloses a method for sequential acquisition of images from
one interpreter to another.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ALEXIS K VAN DUZER whose telephone number is (571)270-5832. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Thursday 8-5 CT.
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, Fonya Long can be reached at (571) 270-5096. 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.
/A.K.V./Examiner, Art Unit 3682
/EVANGELINE BARR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3682
Prosecution Insights