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 .
Applicant’s arguments/Remarks filed on 11/20/2025 have been entered and considered. A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/12/2025 has been entered.
Claims 7, 8, and 11 remained objected.
New claims 16-17 have been added.
Independent claims 1 and 15 have been cancelled.
Claims 2-9 and 12-14 have been amended.
Claims 2-14, and 16-17 are currently pending.
Please refer to the action below.
Examiner Notes
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. However, the claimed subject matter, not the specification, is the measure of the invention.
Response to Remarks/Arguments
Applicants’ arguments/remarks of pages 6-7, argues and contends that Kamon, and Saito do not disclose or suggest at least the features of “correcting position information of the region-of-interest detected on a first medical image among the plurality of medical images by using pieces of position information of the regions-of-interest detected on second medical images…. second medical images include an image which is imaged before capturing the first medical image …. wherein the second medical images include images which are imaged before and after capturing the first medical image”, have been considered, however they are moot in light of the new grounds of rejection of at least Yoshida in view of Kim and/or Kamon in view of Saito, and further in view of Kim.
Secondly, the Examiner respectfully notes regarding the prior art of Saito, the disclosure clearly teaches in the Abstract “A region of interest modification unit performs a correcting process for correcting the first region of interest into a second region of interest…...The correcting process includes expansion, reduction, or position change of the first region of interest” which discloses or at least suggest the above-noted claimed features (i.e., correcting by using pieces of position information of the region-of-interest) such as the repositioning of the first region of interest which further indicates to a person skill in the art a position correction of the region-of-interest performed on a first medical image among the plurality of medical images by using obviously pieces of position information of said regions-of-interest detected by the recognition processing. The references of Kamon and Saito are from the same field of endeavor, and/or are reasonably pertinent to the problem of correcting the position of the region of interest from a first detected position to a second corrected position in at least a second image. At least Saito teaches the detection and recognition of the first region of interest (ROI) and the repositioning and correction of said first ROI position to a second position. It would have been obvious to position detection of the ROI of Kamon in view of the teachings of Saito which provides detection and recognition of the first region of interest (ROI) and the repositioning and correction of said first ROI position to a second position, therefore a person having ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Kamon in view of Saito to realize the corrected position information of the region-of-interest detected on a first medical image to be reflected on a second medical images or the like which would have been further obvious based on the preponderance of the evidence according to known methods to yield predictable results since known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art as said combination is thus the adaptation of an old idea or invention using newer technology that is either commonly available and understood in the art thereby a variation on already known art (See MPEP 2143, KSR Exemplary Rationale F).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, 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.
Claim(s) 2-3, 5-6, 9-10, 12-14, and 17 is/are further rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable and obvious over Kamon et al. (WO 2020/040087, previously cited), in view of Saito et al. (WO 2019/012911, previously cited), and further in view of Kim et al. (US 2019/0370970, A1).
Regarding claim 2 (according to claim 3), Kamon is silent regarding wherein the correction is performed in a case where validity of a result of the recognition processing performed on the first medical image is lower than a predetermined threshold value.
Saito further teaches in the disclosure of at least Figs. 3-8 the correction is performed in a case where validity of a result or a calculated value of the recognition processing performed on the first medical image is lower than a predetermined threshold value. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Kamon in view of Saito to include wherein correction is performed in a case where validity of a result of the recognition processing performed on the first medical image is lower than a predetermined threshold value, as discussed above, as Kamon in view of Saito are in the same field of endeavor of sequentially acquiring of a plurality of medical images, and processing said images so as to detect a region of interest of at least one of the images that depicts at least a lesion of interest, and to further compare said region of interest to one or more region of interest of subsequent acquired images, Saito further complements the region of interest detection of Kamon with an augmented position correction of the position of the region of interest of the subsequent images of Kamon in a case where as understood in the art the recognition result validity score is below a threshold and/or the user/system instructs the system to recalculate/reconfirm the region of interest to more accurately detect a lesion of interest reflected by said detected region of interest which may be further realized according to known methods to yield predictable results since known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art as said combination is thus the adaptation of an old idea or invention using newer technology that is either commonly available and understood in the art thereby a variation on already known art (See MPEP 2143, KSR Exemplary Rationale F).
Regarding claim 3, Kamon teaches in at least Fig. 1 a medical image processing system 10 comprising:
a memory18 of Fig. 1 that stores a program instruction; and
a processor 17 of Fig. 1 configured to execute the program instruction,
wherein the processor is configured to:
sequentially acquire a plurality of medical images generated by continuously
imaging an observation target (unit 11 of Fig. 1 and the disclosure are configured for at least sequentially acquire by at least the endoscope system 21a plurality of medical images generated by continuously imaging an observation target);
detect regions-of-interest from the medical images by performing recognition
processing on each of the plurality of medical images (the disclosure and Figs. 3-15); and
detect position information of the region-of-interest detected by the recognition
processing performed on a first medical image among the plurality of medical images by using pieces of position information of the regions-of-interest detected by the recognition processing performed on second medical images which are different from the first medical image among the plurality of medical images (the disclosure and further Fig. 4 and 14-15 further teaches to further detect a change or movement of the position information of the region-of-interest 34a detected by the recognition processing performed on a first medical image among the plurality of medical images by using pieces of position information of the regions-of-interest 34b detected by the recognition processing performed on second medical images which are at least different in time from the first medical image among the plurality of medical images); and
However, Kamon is silent regarding specifically citing correct position information of the region-of-interest detected by the recognition processing performed on a first medical image among the plurality of medical images by using pieces of position information of the regions-of-interest detected by the recognition processing performed on second medical images which are different from the first medical image among the plurality of medical images; and wherein the second medical images include an image which is imaged before capturing the first medical image.
Saito teaches in at least the Abstract and the disclosure “region-of-interest change unit 74 performs a correction process of changing the region of interest extracted by the region-of-interest extraction unit 70 from the first region of interest to the second region of interest. The first region of interest is the region of interest before the modification process, and the second region of interest is the region of interest after the modification process. The correction process is performed when the user interface 19 receives an instruction of the correction process which is one of the instructions to the region of interest change unit 74…... The correction process includes enlargement, reduction or repositioning of the first region of interest, said region of interest modification unit at least implied a comparison means which may include obviously one or more acquired images further executing a ROI correcting process includes expansion, reduction, or reposition change of the first region of interest in a case of Fig. 3 where the calculated detection result as illustrated in the disclosure is less than a threshold or exceed a certain predetermined value. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Kamon in view of Saito to include wherein correct a position information of the region-of-interest detected by the recognition processing performed on a first medical image among the plurality of medical images by using pieces of position information of the regions-of-interest detected by the recognition processing performed on second medical images which are different from the first medical image among the plurality of medical images, as discussed above, as Kamon and Saito are from the same field of endeavor, and/or are reasonably pertinent to the problem of correcting the position of the region of interest from a first detected position to a second corrected position in at least a second image. At least Saito teaches the detection and recognition of the first region of interest (ROI) and the repositioning and correction of said first ROI position to a second position, the teachings of Saito further complements detection provision and recognition of the first region of interest (ROI) and the repositioning and correction of said first ROI position to a second position to the teachings of Kamon, therefore, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Kamon in view of Saito to realize the corrected position information of the region-of-interest detected on a first medical image to be reflected on a second medical images or the like which would have been further obvious based on the preponderance of the evidence according to known methods to yield predictable results since known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art as said combination is thus the adaptation of an old idea or invention using newer technology that is either commonly available and understood in the art thereby a variation on already known art (See MPEP 2143, KSR Exemplary Rationale F).
However, Kamon in view of Saito are silent regarding specifically the second medical images include an image which is imaged before capturing the first medical image.
Kim teaches at least in the Abstract registering a position of interest in captured medical images wherein at least one or more second medical images include an image which is imaged before capturing the first medical image. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Kamon in view of Saito, and further in view of Kim to include wherein specifically the second medical images include an image which is imaged before capturing the first medical image, as discussed above, as Kamon in view of Saito, and further in view of Kim are from the same field of endeavor, and/or are reasonably pertinent to the problem of registering and/or correcting the position of the region of interest from a first detected position to a second corrected position in at least a second image. The teachings of Kim further complements the detection provision and recognition of the first region of interest (ROI) and the repositioning and correction of the first ROI position to a second position to the teachings of Kamon in view of Saito, in the sense that said second image captured architecture before a first image of Kim when combined with the detection position recognition, repositioning and correction architecture of Kamon in view of Saito facilitates and/or optimized region of interest position correction detection for using the previously captured second images taken in a case before the first images as the position comparison reference images, therefore, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Kamon in view of Saito and further in view of Kim to realize the corrected position information of the region-of-interest detected on a first medical image to be reflected on a second medical images or the like which would have been further obvious based on the preponderance of the evidence according to known methods to yield predictable results since known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art as said combination is thus the adaptation of an old idea or invention using newer technology that is either commonly available and understood in the art thereby a variation on already known art (See MPEP 2143, KSR Exemplary Rationale F).
Regarding claim 5, Kamon teaches in at least Fig. 1 a medical image processing system 10 comprising:
a memory18 of Fig. 1 that stores a program instruction; and
a processor 17 of Fig. 1 configured to execute the program instruction,
wherein the processor is configured to:
sequentially acquire a plurality of medical images generated by continuously
imaging an observation target (unit 11 of Fig. 1 and the disclosure are configured for at least sequentially acquire by at least the endoscope system 21a plurality of medical images generated by continuously imaging an observation target);
detect regions-of-interest from the medical images by performing recognition
processing on each of the plurality of medical images (the disclosure and Figs. 3-15); and
detect position information of the region-of-interest detected by the recognition
processing performed on a first medical image among the plurality of medical images by using pieces of position information of the regions-of-interest detected by the recognition processing performed on second medical images which are different from the first medical image among the plurality of medical images (the disclosure and further Fig. 4 and 14-15 further teaches to further detect a change or movement of the position information of the region-of-interest 34a detected by the recognition processing performed on a first medical image among the plurality of medical images by using pieces of position information of the regions-of-interest 34b detected by the recognition processing performed on second medical images which are at least different in time from the first medical image among the plurality of medical images);
However, Kamon is silent regarding specifically citing correct position information of the region-of-interest detected by the recognition processing performed on a first medical image among the plurality of medical images by using pieces of position information of the regions-of-interest detected by the recognition processing performed on second medical images which are different from the first medical image among the plurality of medical images; and wherein the second medical images include images which are imaged before and after capturing the first medical image.
Saito teaches in at least the Abstract and the disclosure “region-of-interest change unit 74 performs a correction process of changing the region of interest extracted by the region-of-interest extraction unit 70 from the first region of interest to the second region of interest. The first region of interest is the region of interest before the modification process, and the second region of interest is the region of interest after the modification process. The correction process is performed when the user interface 19 receives an instruction of the correction process which is one of the instructions to the region of interest change unit 74…... The correction process includes enlargement, reduction or repositioning of the first region of interest, said region of interest modification unit at least implied a comparison means which may include obviously one or more acquired images further executing a ROI correcting process includes expansion, reduction, or reposition change of the first region of interest in a case of Fig. 3 where the calculated detection result as illustrated in the disclosure is less than a threshold or exceed a certain predetermined value. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Kamon in view of Saito to include wherein correct a position information of the region-of-interest detected by the recognition processing performed on a first medical image among the plurality of medical images by using pieces of position information of the regions-of-interest detected by the recognition processing performed on second medical images which are different from the first medical image among the plurality of medical images, as discussed above, as Kamon and Saito are from the same field of endeavor, and/or are reasonably pertinent to the problem of correcting the position of the region of interest from a first detected position to a second corrected position in at least a second image. At least Saito teaches the detection and recognition of the first region of interest (ROI) and the repositioning and correction of said first ROI position to a second position, the teachings of Saito further complements detection provision and recognition of the first region of interest (ROI) and the repositioning and correction of said first ROI position to a second position to the teachings of Kamon, therefore, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Kamon in view of Saito to realize the corrected position information of the region-of-interest detected on a first medical image to be reflected on a second medical images or the like which would have been further obvious based on the preponderance of the evidence according to known methods to yield predictable results since known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art as said combination is thus the adaptation of an old idea or invention using newer technology that is either commonly available and understood in the art thereby a variation on already known art (See MPEP 2143, KSR Exemplary Rationale F).
However, Kamon in view of Saito are silent regarding specifically the second medical images include images which are imaged before and after capturing the first medical image.
Kim teaches at least in the Abstract registering a position of interest in captured medical images wherein at least one or more second medical images include an image which is imaged before capturing the first medical image. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Kamon in view of Saito, and further in view of Kim to include wherein specifically the medical images include images which are imaged before and after capturing the first medical image, as discussed above, as Kamon in view of Saito, and further in view of Kim are from the same field of endeavor, and/or are reasonably pertinent to the problem of registering and/or correcting the position of the region of interest from a first detected position to a second corrected position in at least a second image. The teachings of Kim further complements the detection provision and recognition of the first region of interest (ROI) and the repositioning and correction of the first ROI position to a second position to the teachings of Kamon in view of Saito, in the sense that said second image captured architecture before a first image of Kim when combined with the detection position recognition, repositioning and correction architecture of Kamon in view of Saito facilitates and/or optimized region of interest position correction detection for using the previously captured second images taken in a case before the first images as the position comparison reference images, therefore, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Kamon in view of Saito and further in view of Kim to realize the corrected position information of the region-of-interest detected on a first medical image to be reflected on a second medical images or the like which would have been further obvious based on the preponderance of the evidence according to known methods to yield predictable results since known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art as said combination is thus the adaptation of an old idea or invention using newer technology that is either commonly available and understood in the art thereby a variation on already known art (See MPEP 2143, KSR Exemplary Rationale F).
Regarding claim 6 (according to claim 3), Kamon is silent regarding wherein the correction is performed in a case where an instruction by a user is input.
Saito further teaches the correction of further Figs. 3-8 is performed in a case where an instruction by a user or mouse click is input. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Kamon in view of Saito to include wherein correction is performed in a case where an instruction by a user is input, as discussed above, as Kamon in view of Saito are in the same field of endeavor of sequentially acquiring of a plurality of medical images, and processing said images so as to detect a region of interest of at least one of the images that depicts at least a lesion of interest, and to further compare said region of interest to one or more region of interest of subsequent acquired images, Saito further complements the region of interest detection of Kamon with an augmented position correction of the position of the region of interest of the subsequent images of Kamon in a case where as understood in the art the recognition result validity score is below a threshold, the user in that case may obviously instructs the system to recalculate/reconfirm the region of interest to more accurately detect a lesion of interest reflected by said detected region of interest which may be further realized according to known methods to yield predictable results since known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art as said combination is thus the adaptation of an old idea or invention using newer technology that is either commonly available and understood in the art thereby a variation on already known art (See MPEP 2143, KSR Exemplary Rationale F).
Regarding claim 9 (according to claim 3), Kamon further teaches wherein the recognition processing includes determination processing of determining the region-of-interest (the recognition processing of further Figs. 3-15 further includes determination processing of determining the region-of-interest).
Regarding claim 10 (according to claim 9), Kamon is silent regarding wherein, in the correction, correction of a result of the determination is performed.
Saito further teaches in at least Figs. 3-8 wherein, in the correction, correction of a result of the determination is performed. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Kamon in view of Saito to include wherein, in the correction, correction of a result of the determination is performed, as discussed above, as Kamon in view of Saito are in the same field of endeavor of sequentially acquiring of a plurality of medical images, and processing said images so as to detect a region of interest of at least one of the images that depicts at least a lesion of interest, and to further compare said region of interest to one or more region of interest of subsequent acquired images, Saito further complements the region of interest detection of Kamon with an augmented position correction of the position of the region of interest of the subsequent images of Kamon in a case where as understood in the art the recognition result validity score is below a threshold and/or the user/system instructs the system to recalculate/reconfirm the region of interest to more accurately detect a lesion of interest reflected by said detected region of interest which may be further realized according to known methods to yield predictable results since known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art as said combination is thus the adaptation of an old idea or invention using newer technology that is either commonly available and understood in the art thereby a variation on already known art (See MPEP 2143, KSR Exemplary Rationale F).
Regarding claim 12 (according to claim 3), Kamon further teaches wherein, in the recognition processing, a convolutional neural network is used (the disclosure further cites “FIG. 3, the medical image analysis processing unit 12 includes an attention area detection unit 41. The attention area detection unit 41 performs an attention area detection process of detecting an attention area from a medical image. As the attention area detection processing, for example, NN (Neural Network), CNN (Convolutional Neural Network), Adaboost, random forest, or the like may be used”).
Regarding claim 13 (according to claim 3), Kamon further teaches wherein, in the recognition processing, a lesion portion is detected as the regions-of-interest (the disclosure further cites “the attention area detected by the attention area detection unit 41 is, for example, a lesion represented by cancer, a benign tumor, or an inflammation (including a part having a change such as bleeding or atrophy in addition to so-called inflammation)”).
Regarding claim 14 (according to claim 3), Kamon further teaches wherein the medical image is an image obtained from an endoscope (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 17 (according to claim 5), Kamon is silent regarding wherein the correction is performed in a case where validity of a result of the recognition processing performed on the first medical image is lower than a predetermined threshold value.
Saito further teaches in the disclosure of at least Figs. 3-8 the correction is performed in a case where validity of a result or a calculated value of the recognition processing performed on the first medical image is lower than a predetermined threshold value. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Kamon in view of Saito to include wherein correction is performed in a case where validity of a result of the recognition processing performed on the first medical image is lower than a predetermined threshold value, as discussed above, as Kamon in view of Saito are in the same field of endeavor of sequentially acquiring of a plurality of medical images, and processing said images so as to detect a region of interest of at least one of the images that depicts at least a lesion of interest, and to further compare said region of interest to one or more region of interest of subsequent acquired images, Saito further complements the region of interest detection of Kamon with an augmented position correction of the position of the region of interest of the subsequent images of Kamon in a case where as understood in the art the recognition result validity score is below a threshold and/or the user/system instructs the system to recalculate/reconfirm the region of interest to more accurately detect a lesion of interest reflected by said detected region of interest which may be further realized according to known methods to yield predictable results since known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art as said combination is thus the adaptation of an old idea or invention using newer technology that is either commonly available and understood in the art thereby a variation on already known art (See MPEP 2143, KSR Exemplary Rationale F).
Claim(s) 4, and 16 is/are further rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable and obvious over Kamon in view of Saito.
Regarding claim 4, Kamon teaches in at least Fig. 1 a medical image processing system 10 comprising:
a memory18 of Fig. 1 that stores a program instruction; and
a processor 17 of Fig. 1 configured to execute the program instruction,
wherein the processor is configured to:
sequentially acquire a plurality of medical images generated by continuously
imaging an observation target (unit 11 of Fig. 1 and the disclosure are configured for at least sequentially acquire by at least the endoscope system 21a plurality of medical images generated by continuously imaging an observation target);
detect regions-of-interest from the medical images by performing recognition
processing on each of the plurality of medical images (the disclosure and Figs. 3-15); and
detect position information of the region-of-interest detected by the recognition
processing performed on a first medical image among the plurality of medical images by using pieces of position information of the regions-of-interest detected by the recognition processing performed on second medical images which are different from the first medical image among the plurality of medical images (the disclosure and further Fig. 4 and 14-15 further teaches to further detect a change or movement of the position information of the region-of-interest 34a detected by the recognition processing performed on a first medical image among the plurality of medical images by using pieces of position information of the regions-of-interest 34b detected by the recognition processing performed on second medical images which are at least different in time from the first medical image among the plurality of medical images); and
wherein the second medical images include an image which is imaged after capturing the first medical image (in a case of further acquired images from the endoscope system 21 of Fig. 1 said second medical images may include an image which is imaged after the first medical).
However, Kamon is silent regarding specifically citing correct position information of the region-of-interest detected by the recognition processing performed on a first medical image among the plurality of medical images by using pieces of position information of the regions-of-interest detected by the recognition processing performed on second medical images which are different from the first medical image among the plurality of medical images.
Saito teaches in at least the Abstract and the disclosure “region-of-interest change unit 74 performs a correction process of changing the region of interest extracted by the region-of-interest extraction unit 70 from the first region of interest to the second region of interest. The first region of interest is the region of interest before the modification process, and the second region of interest is the region of interest after the modification process. The correction process is performed when the user interface 19 receives an instruction of the correction process which is one of the instructions to the region of interest change unit 74…... The correction process includes enlargement, reduction or repositioning of the first region of interest, said region of interest modification unit at least implied a comparison means which may include obviously one or more acquired images further executing a ROI correcting process includes expansion, reduction, or reposition change of the first region of interest in a case of Fig. 3 where the calculated detection result as illustrated in the disclosure is less than a threshold or exceed a certain predetermined value. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Kamon in view of Saito to include wherein correct a position information of the region-of-interest detected by the recognition processing performed on a first medical image among the plurality of medical images by using pieces of position information of the regions-of-interest detected by the recognition processing performed on second medical images which are different from the first medical image among the plurality of medical images, as discussed above, as Kamon and Saito are from the same field of endeavor, and/or are reasonably pertinent to the problem of correcting the position of the region of interest from a first detected position to a second corrected position in at least a second image. At least Saito teaches the detection and recognition of the first region of interest (ROI) and the repositioning and correction of said first ROI position to a second position, the teachings of Saito further complements detection provision and recognition of the first region of interest (ROI) and the repositioning and correction of said first ROI position to a second position to the teachings of Kamon, therefore, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Kamon in view of Saito to realize the corrected position information of the region-of-interest detected on a first medical image to be reflected on a second medical images or the like which would have been further obvious based on the preponderance of the evidence according to known methods to yield predictable results since known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art as said combination is thus the adaptation of an old idea or invention using newer technology that is either commonly available and understood in the art thereby a variation on already known art (See MPEP 2143, KSR Exemplary Rationale F).
Regarding claim 16 (according to claim 4), Kamon is silent regarding wherein the correction is performed in a case where validity of a result of the recognition processing performed on the first medical image is lower than a predetermined threshold value.
Saito further teaches in the disclosure of at least Figs. 3-8 the correction is performed in a case where validity of a result or a calculated value of the recognition processing performed on the first medical image is lower than a predetermined threshold value. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Kamon in view of Saito to include wherein correction is performed in a case where validity of a result of the recognition processing performed on the first medical image is lower than a predetermined threshold value, as discussed above, as Kamon in view of Saito are in the same field of endeavor of sequentially acquiring of a plurality of medical images, and processing said images so as to detect a region of interest of at least one of the images that depicts at least a lesion of interest, and to further compare said region of interest to one or more region of interest of subsequent acquired images, Saito further complements the region of interest detection of Kamon with an augmented position correction of the position of the region of interest of the subsequent images of Kamon in a case where as understood in the art the recognition result validity score is below a threshold and/or the user/system instructs the system to recalculate/reconfirm the region of interest to more accurately detect a lesion of interest reflected by said detected region of interest which may be further realized according to known methods to yield predictable results since known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art as said combination is thus the adaptation of an old idea or invention using newer technology that is either commonly available and understood in the art thereby a variation on already known art (See MPEP 2143, KSR Exemplary Rationale F).
Claim(s) 3, and 5 is/are further rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable and obvious over Yoshida et al. (US 2018/0310905, A1), in view of Kim et al. (US 2019/0370970, A1).
Regarding claim 3, Yoshida teaches in at least Fig. 1 a medical image processing system 100 comprising:
a memory 4 of Fig. 1 that stores a program instruction; and
a processor 2 of Fig. 1 configured to execute the program instruction,
wherein the processor is configured to:
sequentially acquire a plurality of medical images generated by continuously
imaging an observation target (unit 2 of Figs. 1-2 and the disclosure are configured for at least sequentially acquire by at least the x-ray imaging system a plurality of medical images generated by continuously imaging an observation target);
detect regions-of-interest from the medical images by performing recognition
processing on each of the plurality of medical images (detected regions of interest C1-C6 of the disclosure and Figs. 4B-8, 9-15); and
correct position information of the region-of-interest detected by the recognition
processing performed on a first medical image among the plurality of medical images by using pieces of position information of the regions-of-interest detected by the recognition processing performed on second medical images which are different from the first medical image among the plurality of medical images (the disclosure and further Figs. 7-8 and 14-16 further supported by para. 0098-0101 further teaches to further detect a change in position of the region of interest and perform correction of said position information of the region-of-interest detected by the recognition processing performed on a first medical image among the plurality of medical images by using pieces of position information of the regions-of-interest detected by the recognition processing performed on second medical images which are at least different in time from the first medical image among the plurality of medical images); and
However, Yoshida is silent regarding specifically the second medical images include an image which is imaged before capturing the first medical image.
Kim teaches at least in the Abstract registering a position of interest in captured medical images wherein at least one or more second medical images include an image which is imaged before capturing the first medical image. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Yoshida in view of Kim to include wherein specifically the second medical images include an image which is imaged before capturing the first medical image, as discussed above, as Yoshida in view of Kim are from the same field of endeavor, and/or are reasonably pertinent to the problem of registering and/or correcting the position of the region of interest from a first detected position to a second corrected position in at least a second image. The teachings of Kim further complements the detection position provision and recognition of the first region of interest (ROI) and the repositioning and correction of the first ROI position to a second position to the teachings of Yoshida, in the sense that said second image captured before a first image architecture of Kim when combined with the detection position recognition, repositioning and correction architecture of Yoshida facilitates and/or optimizes region of interest position correction detection for using the previously captured second images taken in a case before the first images of Kim as the position comparison reference images, therefore, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Yoshida in view of Kim to realize the corrected position information of the region-of-interest detected on a first medical image to be reflected on a second medical images or the like which would have been further obvious based on the preponderance of the evidence according to known methods to yield predictable results since known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art as said combination is thus the adaptation of an old idea or invention using newer technology that is either commonly available and understood in the art thereby a variation on already known art (See MPEP 2143, KSR Exemplary Rationale F).
Regarding claim 5, Yoshida teaches in at least Fig. 1 a medical image processing system 100 comprising:
a memory 4 of Fig. 1 that stores a program instruction; and
a processor 2 of Fig. 1 configured to execute the program instruction,
wherein the processor is configured to:
sequentially acquire a plurality of medical images generated by continuously
imaging an observation target (unit 2 of Figs. 1-2 and the disclosure are configured for at least sequentially acquire by at least the x-ray imaging system a plurality of medical images generated by continuously imaging an observation target);
detect regions-of-interest from the medical images by performing recognition
processing on each of the plurality of medical images (detected regions of interest C1-C6 of the disclosure and Figs. 4B-8, 9-15); and
correct position information of the region-of-interest detected by the recognition
processing performed on a first medical image among the plurality of medical images by using pieces of position information of the regions-of-interest detected by the recognition processing performed on second medical images which are different from the first medical image among the plurality of medical images (the disclosure and further Figs. 7-8 and 14-16 further supported by para. 0098-0101 further teaches to further detect a change in position of the region of interest and perform correction of said position information of the region-of-interest detected by the recognition processing performed on a first medical image among the plurality of medical images by using pieces of position information of the regions-of-interest detected by the recognition processing performed on second medical images which are at least different in time from the first medical image among the plurality of medical images); and
However, Yoshida is silent regarding specifically the second medical images include images which are imaged before and after capturing the first medical image.
Kim teaches at least in the Abstract registering a position of interest in captured medical images wherein at least one or more second medical images include an image which is imaged before capturing the first medical image. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Yoshida in view of Kim to include wherein specifically said second medical images include images which are imaged before and after capturing the first medical image, as discussed above, as Yoshida in view of Kim are from the same field of endeavor, and/or are reasonably pertinent to the problem of registering and/or correcting the position of the region of interest from a first detected position to a second corrected position in at least a second image. The teachings of Kim further complements the detection position provision and recognition of the first region of interest (ROI) and the repositioning and correction of the first ROI position to a second position to the teachings of Yoshida, in the sense that said second image captured before a first image architecture of Kim when combined with the detection position recognition, repositioning and correction architecture of Yoshida facilitates and/or optimizes region of interest position correction detection for using the previously captured second images taken in a case before the first images of Kim as the position comparison reference images, therefore, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Yoshida in view of Kim to realize the corrected position information of the region-of-interest detected on a first medical image to be reflected on a second medical images or the like which would have been further obvious based on the preponderance of the evidence according to known methods to yield predictable results since known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art as said combination is thus the adaptation of an old idea or invention using newer technology that is either commonly available and understood in the art thereby a variation on already known art (See MPEP 2143, KSR Exemplary Rationale F).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in 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 was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 4 is/are further rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being unpatentable over Yoshida et al.
Regarding claim 4, Yoshida teaches in at least Fig. 1 a medical image processing system 100 comprising:
a memory 4 of Fig. 1 that stores a program instruction; and
a processor 2 of Fig. 1 configured to execute the program instruction,
wherein the processor is configured to:
sequentially acquire a plurality of medical images generated by continuously
imaging an observation target (unit 2/21 of Figs. 1-2 and the disclosure are configured for at least sequentially further in para. 0014 acquire by at least the x-ray imaging system a plurality of medical images generated by continuously imaging an observation target);
detect regions-of-interest from the medical images by performing recognition
processing on each of the plurality of medical images (detected regions of interest C1-C6 of the disclosure and Figs. 4B-8, 9-15); and
correct position information of the region-of-interest detected by the recognition
processing performed on a first medical image among the plurality of medical images by using pieces of position information of the regions-of-interest detected by the recognition processing performed on second medical images which are different from the first medical image among the plurality of medical images (the disclosure and further Figs. 7-8 and 14-16 further supported by para. 0098-0101 further teaches provision to further detect a change in position of the region of interest and perform correction of said position information of the region-of-interest detected by the recognition processing performed on a first medical image among the plurality of medical images by using pieces of position information of the regions-of-interest detected by the recognition processing performed on second medical images which are at least different in time from the first medical image among the plurality of medical images); and
wherein the second medical images include an image which is imaged after capturing the first medical image (in a case of further exist where acquired images by the unit 21 of Fig. 1 said may obviously include second medical images which is imaged after the first medical).
Claim Standings
Claims 7-8, and 11 remained objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, and if all outstanding rejections are overcome.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARCELLUS AUGUSTIN whose telephone number is (571)270-3384. The examiner can normally be reached 9 AM- 5 PM.
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, BENNY TIEU can be reached at 571-272-7490. 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.
/MARCELLUS J AUGUSTIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2682 01/20/2026