CTFR 17/979,248 CTFR 82476 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. 12-151 AIA 26-51 12-51 Status of Claims Claims 1-19 are pending. Information Disclosure Statement The Information Disclosure Statements filed on 02/09/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and have been considered. An initialed copy of the Form 1449 is enclosed herewith. Claim Objections Previous objection(s) to claim(s) have been withdrawn in view of amendments made by the applicant. However, delete the occurrence of operating state obtaining unit in claim 10 to avoid any further 112(f) issues. Appropriate correction is required. 07-30-03-h AIA Claim Interpretation Previous interpretation of claim(s) under 112(f) have been withdrawn in view of amendments made by the applicant. Response to Arguments Applicant’s amendments, filed 02/09/2026, have been fully considered and entered, however, in view of amendments, previous rejection(s) have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Ozake. 07-37 AIA Applicant's arguments filed 02/09/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that claims do not recite an abstract idea, claim(s) cannot be practically performed as a mental process in human mind in view of the current amendments, see pages 10-11, and applicant further argues in pages 12-15 that claims now provide a practical application by providing a sufficient non-conventional structure as significantly more and delivers improvements to technology by providing a technical solutions as improvements in terms of usability and accuracy. In reply, examiner disagrees and asserts that firstly recitation of a processor and memory with processor executing instructions stored in memory and having a display displaying and updating things are all very generic computer components which provide no actual information about a particular machine solving a particular problem. Secondly, with addition of new amendments which could represent the mental processing steps of presenting a state where information’s (i.e., lesions) are displayed with exact position or mark on the display representing each of the information and updating display accordingly for each of the information when there is plurality of different items in the information as desired by user. These steps are abstract as they can be easily performed by user in terms of observation, judgement and evaluation with a simple pen and paper. The improvements as stated by applicant are not positively tied to a specific machine or apparatus in the claim and are also not positively apparent or recited in the claims. The improvements in terms of usability and accuracy are too generic and do not seem to apply to the mental steps of the claims and fails to result in a practical application which could potentially provide a particular technical solution by employing additional elements which amount to significantly more. Thus, steps of obtaining/acquiring information and medical image data is just data gathering or an extra solution activity in the field of endeavor. And steps of evaluating obtained information to determine if it can be executed or not with establishing reasoning behind the determination and updating/displaying information is an abstract idea and person looking at the acquired medical images can identify abnormalities in the information and pinpoint there exact location and apply updates while having a pen and paper. Furthermore, there are no additional elements recited such as use of a particular machine or components other than using generic computing apparatus such that all of the limitations in the recited method can be accomplished without reliance on any specific machine. And, lastly, mere recitation of generic computing devices performing the process, which are all well-understood routine practices and are purely generic without providing any elements which are significantly more. Applicant further argues on pages 16-18, that cited references fail to teach all the newly amended features of claim 1. In reply, examiner disagrees and asserts that new 103 combination has been successfully shown to teach all the newly amended features of claim 1 as seemed to be argued by the applicant. For instance, Hitoshi teaches that it is determined whether or not the attention area as specified has been detected by the abnormal shadow candidate detection device based on detection process progress information (including result of whether or not it has been detected, paragraph 24) and detection processing characteristic information table as stored, and if it is determined that the designated region of interest is not detected/executed by the abnormal shadow candidate detection, the reason why the attention area cannot be detected/executed is specified as a display message such as “ when the detection processing characteristic information has the contents shown in FIG. 4, the distance from the nipple of the attention area, the distance from the skin line, and the background density are calculated, and it is determined whether or not each matching condition is met. The If any of the matching conditions is met, the display message associated with the matching condition is acquired as the reason. If none of the matching conditions is met, a display message with characteristic number = 0 is specified as the reason ”, paragraphs 46-47 and in a case where the operating state is information representing a state in which the lesion is detected, control to display an annotation indicating the position of the lesion (“ when a region of interest is designated from the medical image displayed on the display unit 43 by the operation unit 42 (step S4; YES), the position information of the designated region of interest is stored in the RAM and displayed on the displayed medical image ” such as marks M1 and M2 are displayed “ at position of the abnormal shadow candidate included in the CAD information on the medical image displayed on the display unit 43 ”, paragraphs 41, 44); and update to display the annotation, in a case where detection results are present (marks M1 and M2 representing different modality type of lesions based on detection progress information is displayed together on display 43, paragraphs 41, 44), in accordance with designation of a detection result by a user (when a region of interest is designated from the medical image displayed on the display unit 43 by the operation unit 42, the mark M1 is displayed in the designated attention area, wherein, when the display of the CAD result is instructed by the operation unit 42, the mark M2 is displayed at the position of the abnormal shadow candidate included in the CAD information on the medical image displayed on the display unit 43 representing detected abnormal shadow candidate in the form of symbol as a circle or a line and both marks M1 and M2 may be displayed in distinguishable manner, paragraphs 41, 44). Wherein, Ozake teaches update to display annotation, in a case where a plurality of detection results are present (image display area 301, the image contents of the medical image 302 taken by the electronic endoscope 12 are displayed in real time in which the lesion region 303 is included in the image of the medical image 302. In addition, a plurality of lesion areas may be included in one image, paragraph 136), in accordance with designation of a detection result (according to the type of lesions as recognized/detected, paragraphs 87-90). In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “ enables the user to readily understand whether a lesion has not been detected because the lesion-detection processing was executed but failed to detect the lesion, or because the lesion-detection processing was not executed and therefore did not detect the lesion ”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns , 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Furthermore, applicant presumption regarding Hitoshi seems to be incorrect, see page 16, as Hitoshi provides reasoning as to when processing failed to execute not when it thinks that processing is getting executed regardless. What’s the point of giving a reasoning when processing is getting executed anyway? Applicant’s rest of the arguments related to corresponding dependent claims have been rendered moot as they are based on same assertions related to claim 1 which have been already successfully shown to be taught by cited references . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows: Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title. Claims 1-19 are directed toward an apparatus, method and computer readable medium which falls within one of the four statutory categories of invention but do not meet the three-prong test for patentability. Regarding independent claim 1 , under step 1 , the claim is directed to an apparatus, which is one of the categories of eligible inventions. Under step 2A Prong 1 , the claim recites a system with steps reciting optimizing human activity, specifically, obtaining/acquiring data describing information to thereby further assess medical image with abnormalities to further analyze if acquired medical image data can be further defined or not with reasoning provided, which is an abstract idea, comprising: “An information processing apparatus comprising: at least one processor; and a memory coupled to the at least one processor, the memory having instructions that, when executed by the processor, causes the apparatus to: obtain information representing an operating state of detection processing by detecting a lesion from medical image data; in a case where the information representing the operating state is information representing a state in which the detection processing is not excluded and cannot be executed, present information corresponding to a reason why the detection processing cannot be executed; in a case where the operating state is information representing a state in which the lesion is detected, control to display an annotation indicating the position of the lesion; and update to display the annotation, in a case where a plurality of detection results are present, in accordance with designation of a detection result by a user”. It is further noted that steps of obtaining/acquiring information and medical image data is just data gathering or an extra solution activity in the field of endeavor. And steps of evaluating obtained information to determine if it can be executed or not with establishing reasoning behind the determination is an abstract idea and can all be considered mental processes and can be fully accomplished mentally by looking at the acquired medical images and identifying abnormalities which would deter further evaluation while having a pen and paper. Under step 2A Prong 2 , the claim does not recite any additional elements which integrate the judicial exception into a practical application . There are no additional elements recited such as use of a particular machine or components other than using generic computing apparatus. Moreover, all of the limitations in the recited method can be accomplished without reliance on any specific machine and could be accomplished by human minds and interactions between humans as they are not specifically tailored for execution in any specific machine other than using generic computing apparatus. The claim as a whole does not present a practical application of the abstract idea. Under Step 2B , the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea judicial exception because, as discussed in step 2A, there is merely a recitation of generic computing devices performing the process, which are all well-understood routine practices and are purely generic. This finding is consistent with the level of detail of the specification and the well-understood and conventional nature of these elements is broadly covered under court decisions (i) and (iv) from MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) related to receiving and retrieving information in a generic computer environment. The claim is not patent eligible. Regarding claim 2, it merely adds to claim 1 and further details “wherein in a case where the detection processing, and a lesion is detected, the information presentation unit presents the detected lesion”. This again only provides further extra solution activity of acquiring medical images and presentation of said image data which is a mental process on a generic device, that could be performed unaided by a human, recited as performed by a generic computing device, and thus, as in the claim do not constitute practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea. Regarding claim 3, it merely adds to claim 1 and further details “obtain the medical image data; detect a lesion from the medical image data; configured to decide a type of an associated lesion associated with the lesion; and obtain a detection result of the associated lesion in accordance with the type of the associated lesion, wherein obtains information representing an operating state of detection processing for the associated lesion, and presents the information representing the operating state of the detection processing for the associated lesion”. This again only provides further extra solution activity of acquiring plurality of different image data and presentation of said image data with some evaluation, which is a mental process on a generic device, that can be performed by a human mind with the mere recitation of execution by a generic computing device and communication between generic computing devices which, as in the claim do not constitute practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea. Regarding claim 4, it merely adds to claim 3 and further details “discriminatively presents, detection results of a plurality of lesions detected and the detection result of the associated lesion”. This again only provides further extra solution activity of acquiring plurality of different image data and presentation of said image data with some evaluation which is a mental process on a generic device, that could be performed unaided by a human, recited as performed by a generic computing device, and thus, as in claim do not constitute practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea. Regarding claim 5, it merely adds to claim 3 and further details “presents detection results of a plurality of lesions and the information representing the operating state of the detection processing for each lesion together”. This again only provides further extra solution activity of acquiring plurality of different image data and presentation of said image data with some evaluation which is a mental process on a generic device, that can be performed by a human mind with the mere recitation of execution by a generic computing device and communication between generic computing devices which, as in claim do not constitute practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea. Regarding claim 6, it merely adds to claim 3 and further details “presents the detection result of the associated lesion and the information representing the operating state of the detection processing for the associated lesion together”. This again only provides further extra solution activity of acquiring plurality of different image data and presentation of said image data with some evaluation that can be performed by a human mind with the mere recitation of execution by a generic computing device and communication between generic computing devices which, as in claim do not constitute practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea. Regarding claim 7, it merely adds to claim 3 and further details “presents a position of at least one lesion on display of the medical image data”. This again only provides further extra solution activity of acquiring plurality of different image data and presentation of said image data with some evaluation that can be performed by a human mind with the mere recitation of execution by a generic computing device and communication between generic computing devices which, as in claim do not constitute practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea. Regarding claim 9, it merely adds to claim 1 and further details “wherein the information representing the operating state includes information representing that the detection processing by the lesion detection unit is being executed”. This again only provides a mental process on a generic device that can be performed by a human mind with the mere recitation of execution by a generic computing device and communication between generic computing devices which, as in claim do not constitute practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea. Regarding claim 10, it merely adds to claim 9 and further details “wherein in a case where the detection processing is being executed, obtains, information representing a degree of progress of the detection processing and information representing a time remaining until an end of the detection processing, presents at least one of the degree of progress of the detection processing and the time remaining until the end of the detection processing together with the information representing the operating state”. This again only provides further extra solution activity of acquiring plurality of different image data and presentation of said image data with some evaluation using generic computations by generic computer, which is a mental process on a generic device, that could be performed unaided by a human, recited as performed by a generic computing device, and thus, as in the claim do not constitute practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea. Regarding claim 11, it merely adds to claim 8 and further details “wherein the information representing the operating state includes information concerning whether the detection processing can be executed or not”. This again only provides further extra solution activity of performing evaluation/comparison of data based on some settings, which is a mental process on a generic device, that can be performed by a human mind with the mere recitation of execution by a generic computing device and communication between generic computing devices which, as in the claim do not constitute practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea. Regarding claim 12, it merely adds to claim 11 and further details “instruct execution of the detection processing”. This again only provides further extra solution activity of performing evaluation/comparison of data based on some settings which is a mental process on a generic device, that could be performed unaided by a human, recited as performed by a generic computing device, and thus, as in claim do not constitute practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea. Regarding claim 13, it merely adds to claim 12 and further details “wherein in a case where the detection processing is unexecuted, and the detection processing can be executed, instructs the lesion detection unit to execute the detection processing”. This again only provides a mental process on a generic device, that can be performed by a human mind with the mere recitation of execution by a generic computing device and communication between generic computing devices which, as in claim do not constitute practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea. Regarding claim 14, it merely adds to claim 12 and further details “wherein the information corresponding to the reason includes information representing "unintroduced" in which a lesion detection function is not introduced and information representing that the medical image data is data outside an execution condition of the detection processing”. This again only provides a mental process on a generic device with mathematical computation, that can be performed by a human mind with the mere recitation of execution by a generic computing device and communication between generic computing devices which, as in claim do not constitute practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea. Regarding claim 15, it merely adds to claim 14 and further details “wherein in a case where the information corresponding to the reason is the information representing "unintroduced", the instruction unit instructs to introduce an unintroduced lesion detection function”. This again only provides a mental process on a generic device with mathematical computation, that can be performed by a human mind with the mere recitation of execution by a generic computing device and communication between generic computing devices which, as in claim do not constitute practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea. Regarding claim 16, it merely adds to claim 14 and further details “presents an image obtaining confirmation window including a condition designation portion capable of adding or changing a condition to obtain medical image data that satisfies the execution condition of the detection processing”. This again only provides a mental process on a generic device with mathematical computation, that can be performed by a human mind with the mere recitation of execution by a generic computing device and communication between generic computing devices which, as in claim do not constitute practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea. Regarding claim 17, it merely adds to claim 14 and further details “wherein in a case where the information corresponding to the reason is the information representing that the medical image data is data outside the execution condition, instructs an image obtaining unit to obtain medical image data that satisfies the execution condition of the detection processing”. This again only provides a mental process on a generic device with mathematical computation, that can be performed by a human mind with the mere recitation of execution by a generic computing device and communication between generic computing devices which, as in claim do not constitute practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea. Regarding independent claim 18 , under step 1 , the claim is directed to a method, which is one of the categories of eligible inventions. Under step 2A Prong 1 , the claim recites a system with steps reciting optimizing human activity, specifically, obtaining/acquiring data describing information to thereby further assess medical image with abnormalities to further analyze if acquired medical image data can be further defined or not with reasoning provided, which is an abstract idea, comprising: “An information processing method comprising: obtaining information representing an operating state of detection processing to detect a lesion from medical image data; and in a case where the information representing the operating state is information representing a state in which the detection processing is not executed and cannot be executed, presenting information corresponding to a reason why the detection processing cannot be executed, and in a case where the operating state is information representing a state in which the lesion is detected, controlling to display an annotation indicating the position of the lesion, wherein the annotation to be displayed is updated in the controlling, in a case where a plurality of detection results are present, in accordance with designation of a detection result by a user”. It is further noted that steps of obtaining/acquiring information and medical image data is just data gathering or an extra solution activity in the field of endeavor. And steps of evaluating obtained information to determine if it can be executed or not with establishing reasoning behind the determination is an abstract idea and can all be considered mental processes and can be fully accomplished mentally by looking at the acquired medical images and identifying abnormalities which would deter further evaluation while having a pen and paper. Under step 2A Prong 2 , the claim does not recite any additional elements which integrate the judicial exception into a practical application . There are no additional elements recited such as use of a particular machine or components other than using generic computing apparatus. Moreover, all of the limitations in the recited method can be accomplished without reliance on any specific machine and could be accomplished by human minds and interactions between humans as they are not specifically tailored for execution in any specific machine other than using generic computing apparatus. The claim as a whole does not present a practical application of the abstract idea. Under Step 2B , the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea judicial exception because, as discussed in step 2A, there is merely a recitation of generic computing devices performing the process, which are all well-understood routine practices and are purely generic. This finding is consistent with the level of detail of the specification and the well-understood and conventional nature of these elements is broadly covered under court decisions (i) and (iv) from MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) related to receiving and retrieving information in a generic computer environment. The claim is not patent eligible. Regarding independent claim 19 , under step 1 , the claim is directed to a computer readable medium executing the steps of claim 1, which is one of the categories of eligible inventions. Under step 2A Prong 1 , the claim recites a system with steps reciting optimizing human activity, specifically, obtaining/acquiring data describing information to thereby further assess medical image with abnormalities to further analyze if acquired medical image data can be further defined or not with reasoning provided, which is an abstract idea, comprising: “A non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing a program configured to cause a computer to function as an information processing apparatus defined in claim 1”. It is further noted that steps of obtaining/acquiring information and medical image data is just data gathering or an extra solution activity in the field of endeavor. And steps of evaluating obtained information to determine if it can be executed or not with establishing reasoning behind the determination is an abstract idea and can all be considered mental processes and can be fully accomplished mentally by looking at the acquired medical images and identifying abnormalities which would deter further evaluation while having a pen and paper. Under step 2A Prong 2 , the claim does not recite any additional elements which integrate the judicial exception into a practical application . There are no additional elements recited such as use of a particular machine or components other than using generic computing apparatus. Moreover, all of the limitations in the recited method can be accomplished without reliance on any specific machine and could be accomplished by human minds and interactions between humans as they are not specifically tailored for execution in any specific machine other than using generic computing apparatus. The claim as a whole does not present a practical application of the abstract idea. Under Step 2B , the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea judicial exception because, as discussed in step 2A, there is merely a recitation of generic computing devices performing the process, which are all well-understood routine practices and are purely generic. This finding is consistent with the level of detail of the specification and the well-understood and conventional nature of these elements is broadly covered under court decisions (i) and (iv) from MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) related to receiving and retrieving information in a generic computer environment. The claim is not patent eligible. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1-7, 11, 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hitoshi, JP 2012-143368 in view of in view of Masaaki Ozake, JP 2021-121348 . Regarding claim 1, Hitoshi discloses an information processing apparatus ( image display device 4, paragraph 28 ) comprising: at least one processor ( control unit 41, paragraph 37 ) ; and a memory coupled to the at least one processor, the memory having instructions that, when executed by the processor ( medical image display process is executed in cooperation with the control unit 41 and a program stored in the storage unit 45, paragraph 37 ) , causes the apparatus to: obtain information representing an operating state of detection processing by d etecting a lesion from medical image data ( “ medical image to be interpreted, CAD information of the medical image, and the medical image detection process progress information (i.e., information representing an operating state of detection processing) is acquired from the image server 3 ” by the control unit 41, paragraph 39, and wherein, doctor performs designation of mark M1 by operation unit 42 such that doctor “ observes the displayed medical image and diagnoses whether or not there is a region of interest (which is a region suspected of having an abnormal shadow). Do. When the attention area exists, the attention area is designated by clicking with the mouse of the operation unit 42 or the like ”, paragraphs 40-42 ); in a case where the information representing the operating state is information representing a state in which the detection processing is not executed and cannot be executed, present information corresponding to a reason why the detection processing cannot be executed ( it is determined whether or not the attention area as specified has been detected by the abnormal shadow candidate detection device based on detection process progress information (including result of whether or not it has been detected, paragraph 24) and detection processing characteristic information table as stored, and if it is determined that the designated region of interest is not detected/executed by the abnormal shadow candidate detection, the reason why the attention area cannot be detected/executed is specified as a display message such as “ when the detection processing characteristic information has the contents shown in FIG. 4, the distance from the nipple of the attention area, the distance from the skin line, and the background density are calculated, and it is determined whether or not each matching condition is met. The If any of the matching conditions is met, the display message associated with the matching condition is acquired as the reason. If none of the matching conditions is met, a display message with characteristic number = 0 is specified as the reason ”, paragraphs 46-47 ). in a case where the operating state is information representing a state in which the lesion is detected, control to display an annotation indicating the position of the lesion ( “ when a region of interest is designated from the medical image displayed on the display unit 43 by the operation unit 42 (step S4; YES), the position information of the designated region of interest is stored in the RAM and displayed on the displayed medical image ” such as marks M1 and M2 are displayed “ at position of the abnormal shadow candidate included in the CAD information on the medical image displayed on the display unit 43 ”, paragraphs 41, 44 ) ; and update to display the annotation, in a case where detection results are present ( marks M1 and M2 representing different modality type of lesions based on detection progress information is displayed together on display 43, paragraphs 41, 44 ) , in accordance with designation of a detection result by a user ( when a region of interest is designated from the medical image displayed on the display unit 43 by the operation unit 42, the mark M1 is displayed in the designated attention area, wherein, when the display of the CAD result is instructed by the operation unit 42, the mark M2 is displayed at the position of the abnormal shadow candidate included in the CAD information on the medical image displayed on the display unit 43 representing detected abnormal shadow candidate in the form of symbol as a circle or a line and both marks M1 and M2 may be displayed in distinguishable manner, paragraphs 41, 44 ). (Examiner note: since the above “in a case” limitations are contingent/in alternative form; therefore these limitations do not need to occur or need be satisfied by the Hitoshi reference). Hitoshi fails to explicitly disclose update to display annotation, in a case where a plurality of detection results are present. However, Ozake teaches update to display annotation, in a case where a plurality of detection results are present ( image display area 301, the image contents of the medical image 302 taken by the electronic endoscope 12 are displayed in real time in which the lesion region 303 is included in the image of the medical image 302. In addition, a plurality of lesion areas may be included in one image , paragraph 136 ), in accordance with designation of a detection result ( according to the type of lesions as recognized/detected, paragraphs 87-90 ). Hitoshi and Ozake are combinable because they both are in the same field of endeavor dealing with processing medical image data and detecting lesions in in it. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Hitoshi with the teachings of Ozake for the benefit of efficiently effectively perform medical image processing in order to present highly relevant and reasonable recognition results as taught by Ozake at paragraph 143. Regarding claim 2, Combination of Hitoshi with Ozake further teaches in a case where the detection processing is executed, and a lesion is detected, the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, further cause the apparatus to present the detected lesion (Hitoshi, when the display of the CAD result is instructed by the operation unit 42, the mark M2 is displayed at the position of the abnormal shadow candidate included in the CAD information on the medical image displayed on the display unit 43, paragraph 44 ). (Examiner note: since the above “in a case” limitations are contingent/in alternative form; therefore these limitations do not need to occur or need be satisfied by the Hitoshi reference). Regarding claim 3, Combination of Hitoshi with Ozake further teaches wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, further cause the apparatus to: obtain the medical image data (Hitoshi, when medical image to be interpreted is selected by operating the operation unit 42, the selected image data is obtained from image server 3 via communication unit 44, paragraph 38 ); detect a lesion from the medical image data (Hitoshi, doctor performs designation of mark M1 by operation unit 42 such that doctor “ observes the displayed medical image and diagnoses whether or not there is a region of interest (which is a region suspected of having an abnormal shadow). Do. When the attention area exists, the attention area is designated by clicking with the mouse of the operation unit 42 or the like ”, paragraphs 40-41 ); decide a type of an associated lesion associated with the lesion (Hitoshi, “ CAD information includes, for example, position information of each detected area (contour) of abnormal shadow candidates and information on the types of abnormal shadow candidates (for example, tumors, microcalcification clusters, etc.)” , paragraph 24, and this modality type can be selected by operation unit 42, paragraph 38 and displayed as different mark (i.e., M2), paragraph 44 ); obtain a detection result of the associated lesion in accordance with the type of the associated lesion, obtain information representing an operating state of detection processing for the associated lesion, and present the information representing the operating state of the detection processing for the associated lesion (Hitoshi, detection algorithm corresponding to the type of abnormal shadow such as for detecting tumor can be applied, paragraphs 21-22 and depending upon type of modality selected, corresponding medical image with CAD information and the medical image detection process progress information as acquired is displayed on the viewer screen 431 of the display unit 43, the interpretation doctor observes the displayed medical image and diagnoses whether or not there is a region of interest (which is a region suspected of having an abnormal shadow), and when the attention area exists, the attention area is designated by clicking with the mouse of the operation unit 42, paragraphs 39-40 ). Regarding claim 4, Combination of Hitoshi with Ozake further teaches wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, further cause the apparatus to: discriminatively present detection results of a plurality of lesions detected and the detection result of the associated lesion (Hitoshi, “ mark M2 is information indicating an abnormal shadow candidate detected by CAD, and a symbol such as a circle or an arrow indicating a representative point (for example, the center of gravity) of the abnormal shadow candidate, or a region of the abnormal shadow candidate is represented by a line. Drawing information and the like are included. The mark M2 may be displayed in the same manner as the mark M1, but a different display is preferable because the interpretation doctor can easily recognize the attention area and other abnormal shadow candidates ”, paragraph 44 ). Regarding claim 5, Combination of Hitoshi with Ozake further teaches wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, further cause the apparatus to: present detection results of a plurality of lesions and the information representing the operating state of the detection processing for each lesion together (Hitoshi, marks M1 and M2 representing different modality type of lesions based on detection progress information is displayed together on display 43, paragraph 44 ). Regarding claim 6, Combination of Hitoshi with Ozake further teaches wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, further cause the apparatus to: present the detection result of the associated lesion and the information representing the operating state of the detection processing for the associated lesion together (Hitoshi, detection algorithm corresponding to the type of abnormal shadow such as for detecting tumor can be applied, paragraphs 21-22 and depending upon type of modality selected, corresponding medical image with CAD information and the medical image detection process progress information as acquired is displayed on the viewer screen 431 of the display unit 43, the interpretation doctor observes the displayed medical image and diagnoses whether or not there is a region of interest (which is a region suspected of having an abnormal shadow), and when the attention area exists, the attention area is designated by clicking with the mouse of the operation unit 42 such as different modality type can be displayed as different mark (i.e., M2), paragraphs 40, 44 ). Regarding claim 7, Combination of Hitoshi with Ozake further teaches wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, further cause the apparatus to: present a position of at least one lesion on display of the medical image data (Hitoshi, “ when a region of interest is designated from the medical image displayed on the display unit 43 by the operation unit 42 (step S4; YES), the position information of the designated region of interest is stored in the RAM and displayed on the displayed medical image ” such as marks M1 and M2 are displayed “ at position of the abnormal shadow candidate included in the CAD information on the medical image displayed on the display unit 43 ”, paragraphs 41, 44 ). Regarding claim 11, Combination of Hitoshi with Ozake further teaches wherein the information representing the operating state includes information concerning whether the detection processing can be executed or not (Hitoshi, “ the detection algorithm of the abnormal shadow candidate detection apparatus 2 has a detection processing characteristic (weak point) that there is a possibility that an abnormal shadow candidate that matches a certain matching condition may not be detected . For example, an abnormal shadow candidate near the nipple cannot be detected...The “display message” is information on a message indicating the reason why the attention area corresponding to the “matching condition” cannot be detected ”, paragraph 35 ). Regarding claim 18, is a method version of claim 1, which recites similar features, thus, it is rejected on the same rationale as presented for claim 1. Regarding claim 19 is a non-transitory computer readable storage medium version of claim 1, which recites similar features, thus, it is rejected on the same rationale as presented for claim 1. Non-transitory computer readable storage medium is taught by Hitoshi at paragraph 68 . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 12-15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hitoshi, JP 2012-143368 in view of Masaaki Ozake, JP 2021-121348 as applied in claim 1 above and further in view of Moriwaki et al., US 2019/0197688 . Regarding claim 12, Hitoshi further discloses wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, further cause the apparatus to: execution of the detection processing ( “when a request for acquiring a medical image to be interpreted is received, the requested medical image to be interpreted and CAD information corresponding to the medical image are retrieved from the medical image DB 351 and read out. Detection process progress information corresponding to the medical image is retrieved from the detection process progress information DB 352 and read out, and transmitted to the image display device 4 ”, and thereby in response to information received, the “ medical image is displayed on the viewer screen 431 of the display unit 43, the interpretation doctor observes the displayed medical image and diagnoses whether or not there is a region of interest (which is a region suspected of having an abnormal shadow). Do. When the attention area exists, the attention area is designated by clicking with the mouse of the operation unit 42” , paragraphs 39-40 ). Hitoshi with Ozake fails to explicitly disclose to instruct execution of detection processing. However, Moriwaki teaches an instruction unit ( search button 330 in display screen 300 of display device 206 ) configured to instruct execution of detection processing by lesion detection unit ( search unit 142 ) ( when receiving the search Instruction via search button of screen 300, the search unit 142 executes the lesion detection processing for each slice image of the CT image of the diagnosis subject, and detects lesions, paragraph 142-145 ). Hitoshi with Ozake and Moriwaki are combinable because they all are in the same field of endeavor dealing with detecting lesions/abnormalities in medical image data. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Hitoshi with Ozake with the teachings of Moriwaki for the benefit of efficiently search for the similar case based on the distribution of lesions in diseases, lesions of which are distributed in organs as taught by Moriwaki at paragraph 7. Regarding claim 13, Combination of Hitoshi with Ozake and Moriwaki further teaches wherein in a case where the detection processing is unexecuted (Moriwaki , in a case search button hasn’t been operated ), and the detection processing can be executed (Moriwaki , but it can be operated at user’s discretion ), instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, further cause the apparatus to instruct executing the detection processing (Moriwaki , when receiving the search Instruction via search button 330 of screen 300, the search unit 142 executes the lesion detection processing for each slice image of the CT image of the diagnosis subject, and detects lesions, paragraph 142-145 ). (Examiner note: since the above “in a case” limitations are contingent/in alternative form; therefore these limitations do not need to occur or need be satisfied by the Moriwaki reference). Hitoshi with Ozake and Moriwaki are combinable because they all are in the same field of endeavor dealing with detecting lesions/abnormalities in medical image data. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Hitoshi with Ozake with the teachings of Moriwaki for the benefit of efficiently search for the similar case based on the distribution of lesions in diseases, lesions of which are distributed in organs as taught by Moriwaki at paragraph 7. Regarding claim 14, Hitoshi with Ozake and Moriwaki further teaches wherein the information corresponding to the reason (Hitoshi, the reason why the attention area has not been extracted is specified, wherein, candidate records whose position information matches specified by the operation unit 42 are searched, paragraph 47 ) includes information representing "unintroduced" in which a lesion detection function is not introduced (Hitoshi, if none of the matching conditions is met, a display message with characteristic number = 0 (i.e., 0 exemplifies unintroduced) is specified as the reason, paragraph 47 ), and information representing that the medical image data is data outside an execution condition of the detection processing (Hitoshi, if any of the matching conditions is met, the display message associated with the matching condition (i.e., for instance, medical image data is data outside an execution condition) is acquired as the reason, paragraph 47 ). Regarding claim 15, Hitoshi further discloses wherein in a case where the information corresponding to the reason is the information representing "unintroduced" (Hitoshi, the reason why the attention area has not been extracted is specified, wherein, candidate records whose position information matches specified by the operation unit 42 are searched, and, if none of the matching conditions is met, a display message with characteristic number = 0 (i.e., 0 exemplifies unintroduced) is specified as the reason, paragraph 47 ), the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, further cause the apparatus to introduce an unintroduced lesion detection function ( a function in the form of a display message with characteristic number = 0 is displayed/introduced on display exemplifying that none of the matching conditions have been met,, paragraph 47 ). Hitoshi with Ozake fails to further disclose instruct an introduction of an unintroduced lesion detection function. However, Moriwaki teaches instruct an introduction of an unintroduced lesion detection function ( when receiving the search Instruction via search button of screen 300, the search unit 142 executes the lesion detection processing for each slice image of the CT image of the diagnosis subject, and detects lesions, wherein lesions are either detected (introduced) or not detected (unintroduced), paragraph 142-146 ). (Examiner note: since the above “in a case” limitations are contingent/in alternative form; therefore these limitations do not need to occur or need be satisfied by the cited references). Hitoshi with Ozake and Moriwaki are combinable because they all are in the same field of endeavor dealing with detecting lesions/abnormalities in medical image data. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Hitoshi with Ozake with the teachings of Moriwaki for the benefit of efficiently search for the similar case based on the distribution of lesions in diseases, lesions of which are distributed in organs as taught by Moriwaki at paragraph 7. Regarding claim 17, Hitoshi further discloses wherein in a case where the information corresponding to the reason is the information representing that the medical image data is data outside the execution condition ( the reason why the attention area has not been extracted is specified, wherein, candidate records whose position information matches specified by the operation unit 42 are searched and if any of the matching conditions is met, the display message associated with the matching condition (i.e., for instance, medical image data is data outside an execution condition) is acquired as the reason, paragraph 47 ), the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, further cause the apparatus to obtain medical image data that satisfies the execution condition of the detection processing ( “ when a candidate record whose position information matches the attention area is not extracted in the detection process progress information, the detection processing characteristic information table 451 is read from the storage unit 45, and the matching conditions satisfying the attention area are satisfied. The content of the corresponding display message is specified as the reason. For example, when the detection processing characteristic information has the contents shown in FIG. 4, the distance from the nipple of the attention area, the distance from the skin line, and the background density are calculated, and it is determined whether or not each matching condition is met. The If any of the matching conditions is met, the display message associated with the matching condition is acquired as the reason ”, paragraph 47 ). Hitoshi with Ozake fails to further disclose instructs obtaining medical image data. However, Moriwaki teaches instructs obtaining medical image data ( when receiving the search Instruction via search button of screen 300, the search unit 142 executes the lesion detection processing for each slice image of the CT image of the diagnosis subject, and detects and obtains lesions medical data, paragraph 142-146 ). (Examiner note: since the above “in a case” limitations are contingent/in alternative form; therefore these limitations do not need to occur or need be satisfied by the cited references). Hitoshi with Ozake and Moriwaki are combinable because they all are in the same field of endeavor dealing with detecting lesions/abnormalities in medical image data. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Hitoshi with Ozake with the teachings of Moriwaki for the benefit of efficiently search for the similar case based on the distribution of lesions in diseases, lesions of which are distributed in organs as taught by Moriwaki at paragraph 7 . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hitoshi, JP 2012-143368 in view of Masaaki Ozake, JP 2021-121348 as applied in claim 1 above and further in view of Fujita et al., US 2007/0268280 . Regarding claim 9, Hitoshi further discloses wherein the information representing the operating state includes information representing that the detection processing ( “ medical image to be interpreted, CAD information of the medical image, and the medical image detection process progress information (i.e., information representing an operating state of detection processing) is acquired from the image server 3 ” by the control unit 41, paragraph 39, and wherein, doctor performs designation of mark M1 by operation unit 42 such that doctor “ observes the displayed medical image and diagnoses whether or not there is a region of interest (which is a region suspected of having an abnormal shadow). Do. When the attention area exists, the attention area is designated by clicking with the mouse of the operation unit 42 or the like ”, paragraphs 40-42 ). Hitoshi with Ozake fails to further disclose wherein information representing state includes information representing that processing is being executed. However, Fujita teaches wherein information representing state includes information representing that processing is being executed ( as shown in fig. 12, the control unit 15 controls the display unit 11 to sequentially display process progress marks indicating a process status of the initialization process to the receiving unit 3 within the status display area 170 according to the progress status of the initialization process such as displaying a progress message ("initializing", "executing" or the like) indicating the progress process of the initialization process, paragraph 245 ). Hitoshi with Ozake and Fujita are combinable because they all are in the same field of endeavor dealing with execution of image data among image processing apparatuses. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Hitoshi with Ozake with the teachings of Fujita for the benefit of displaying a time scale indicating the imaging period of a series of images can be displayed and an index indicating a position of a selected image from the series of images on the time scale corresponding to an imaging time of the selected image so that an imaging position of the selected image can be easily estimated by visually confirming the index as taught by Fujita at paragraph 37. Regarding claim 10, Combination of Hitoshi with Ozake and Fujita further teaches wherein in a case where the detection processing is being executed, obtaining, information representing a degree of progress of the detection processing and information representing a time remaining until an end of the detection processing, and present at least one of the degree of progress of the detection processing and the time remaining until the end of the detection processing together with the information representing the operating state (Hitoshi teaches that “ medical image to be interpreted, CAD information of the medical image, and the medical image detection process progress information (i.e., information representing an operating state of detection processing) is acquired from the image server 3 ” by the control unit 41, paragraph 39, and wherein, doctor performs designation of mark M1 by operation unit 42 such that doctor “ observes the displayed medical image and diagnoses whether or not there is a region of interest (which is a region suspected of having an abnormal shadow). Do. When the attention area exists, the attention area is designated by clicking with the mouse of the operation unit 42 or the like ”, paragraphs 40-42 ), wherein, Fujita teaches that display unit 11 to sequentially display process progress marks indicating a process status of the initialization process to the receiving unit 3 within the status display area 170 according to the progress status of the initialization process such as displaying a progress message ("initializing", "executing" or the like) indicating the progress process of the initialization process and a remaining time message (for example, "Remaining time: 1 minute 20 seconds") indicating a remaining time until completion of the initialization process near the status display area 170. Thereafter, when the initialization process has been completed, the control unit 15 controls the display unit 11 to display a completion message (for example, "initialization completed"), paragraph 245 ). (Examiner note: since the above “in a case” limitations are contingent/in alternative form; therefore these limitations do not need to occur or need be satisfied by the cited references). Hitoshi with Ozake and Fujita are combinable because they both are in the same field of endeavor dealing with execution of image data among image processing apparatuses. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Hitoshi with Ozake with the teachings of Fujita for the benefit of displaying a time scale indicating the imaging period of a series of images can be displayed and an index indicating a position of a selected image from the series of images on the time scale corresponding to an imaging time of the selected image so that an imaging position of the selected image can be easily estimated by visually confirming the index as taught by Fujita at paragraph 37 . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hitoshi, JP 2012-143368 in view of Masaaki Ozake, JP 2021-121348 further in view of Moriwaki et al., US 2019/0197688 as applied in claim 12 above and further in view of Tomizawa, US 2014/0052858 . Regarding claim 16, Hitoshi further discloses wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, further cause the apparatus to: present a condition to obtain medical image data that satisfies the execution condition of the detection processing ( upon user’s selection of particular medical image, the selected “ medical image to be interpreted, CAD information of the medical image, and the medical image detection process progress information (i.e., information representing an operating state of detection processing) is acquired from the image server 3 ”, paragraphs 38-39, and upon receiving, doctor performs designation of mark M1 by operation unit 42 such that doctor “ observes the displayed medical image and diagnoses whether or not there is a region of interest (which is a region suspected of having an abnormal shadow). Do. When the attention area exists, the attention area is designated by clicking with the mouse of the operation unit 42 or the like ”, paragraphs 40-41 ). Hitoshi with Ozake and Moriwaki fails to further disclose wherein presenting an image obtaining confirmation window including a condition designation portion capable of adding or changing a condition that satisfies the execution condition of processing. However, Tomizawa teaches wherein information presentation unit ( policy display unit ) presents an image obtaining confirmation window including a condition designation portion capable of adding or changing a condition ( policy display unit displaying the plurality of policies on the screen, and adding or modifying a policy in the policy information storage unit according to a user input, paragraph 62 ) that satisfies the execution condition of processing ( policy information storage unit storing a plurality of policies in which a condition including at least one parameter of the plurality of parameters and a process executed when the condition is satisfied are described, paragraph 62 ). Hitoshi with Ozake and Moriwaki are combinable with Tomizawa because they all are in the same field of endeavor dealing with displaying of instructions related to the image data. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Hitoshi with Ozake and Moriwaki with the teachings of Tomizawa for the benefit of assisting in describing parameters so that errors when describing executable conditions are reduced as taught by Tomizawa at paragraphs 13 and 62 . Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Yuzawa, US 2022/0277837 Seo et al., US 2020/0234437 Ando et al., US 2019/0318477 Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL . See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAWANDEEP DHINGRA whose telephone number is (571)270-1231. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00-5:00. 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, Abderrahim Merouan can be reached at (571) 270-5254. 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. /PAWAN DHINGRA/Examiner, Art Unit 2683 /ABDERRAHIM MEROUAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2683 Application/Control Number: 17/979,248 Page 2 Art Unit: 2683 Application/Control Number: 17/979,248 Page 3 Art Unit: 2683 Application/Control Number: 17/979,248 Page 4 Art Unit: 2683 Application/Control Number: 17/979,248 Page 5 Art Unit: 2683 Application/Control Number: 17/979,248 Page 6 Art Unit: 2683 Application/Control Number: 17/979,248 Page 7 Art Unit: 2683 Application/Control Number: 17/979,248 Page 8 Art Unit: 2683 Application/Control Number: 17/979,248 Page 9 Art Unit: 2683 Application/Control Number: 17/979,248 Page 10 Art Unit: 2683 Application/Control Number: 17/979,248 Page 11 Art Unit: 2683 Application/Control Number: 17/979,248 Page 12 Art Unit: 2683 Application/Control Number: 17/979,248 Page 13 Art Unit: 2683 Application/Control Number: 17/979,248 Page 14 Art Unit: 2683 Application/Control Number: 17/979,248 Page 15 Art Unit: 2683 Application/Control Number: 17/979,248 Page 16 Art Unit: 2683 Application/Control Number: 17/979,248 Page 17 Art Unit: 2683 Application/Control Number: 17/979,248 Page 18 Art Unit: 2683 Application/Control Number: 17/979,248 Page 19 Art Unit: 2683 Application/Control Number: 17/979,248 Page 20 Art Unit: 2683 Application/Control Number: 17/979,248 Page 21 Art Unit: 2683 Application/Control Number: 17/979,248 Page 22 Art Unit: 2683 Application/Control Number: 17/979,248 Page 23 Art Unit: 2683 Application/Control Number: 17/979,248 Page 24 Art Unit: 2683 Application/Control Number: 17/979,248 Page 25 Art Unit: 2683 Application/Control Number: 17/979,248 Page 26 Art Unit: 2683 Application/Control Number: 17/979,248 Page 27 Art Unit: 2683 Application/Control Number: 17/979,248 Page 28 Art Unit: 2683 Application/Control Number: 17/979,248 Page 29 Art Unit: 2683 Application/Control Number: 17/979,248 Page 30 Art Unit: 2683 Application/Control Number: 17/979,248 Page 31 Art Unit: 2683 Application/Control Number: 17/979,248 Page 33 Art Unit: 2683 Application/Control Number: 17/979,248 Page 34 Art Unit: 2683 Application/Control Number: 17/979,248 Page 35 Art Unit: 2683 Application/Control Number: 17/979,248 Page 36 Art Unit: 2683 Application/Control Number: 17/979,248 Page 38 Art Unit: 2683
Prosecution Insights