DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
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 allowance or after an Office action under Ex Parte Quayle, 25 USPQ 74, 453 O.G. 213 (Comm'r Pat. 1935). 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, prosecution in this application has been reopened pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on December 12, 2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on December 12, 2025 has been entered.
The addition of claim 15 has been acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 15 recites reading either the first learning result data (captured by the first radiation detection apparatus) or the second learning result data (captured by the second radiation detection apparatus).
However, the claim further recites that the first or the second learning result data is read based on first fluorescence substance, second fluorescence substance, radiation detection apparatus used to capture a first medical image, and on information regarding a fluorescence substance provided in a the radiation detection apparatus used to capture a the first medical image (i.e., requiring both first and second radiation detection apparatuses).
It is unclear how the reading can be based on contradicting conditions, i.e., “either … or” vs. “and.”
For the purpose of further examination, claim 15 has been interpreted as follows (2 interpretations):
Option 1
Claim 15. A method for processing a medical image, the method comprising:
reading, from a storage unit that stores first learning result data obtained by machine learning using a plurality of medical images captured by a first radiation detection apparatus and second learning result data obtained by machine learning using a plurality of medical images captured by a second radiation detection apparatus, the first learning result data and the second learning result data,
wherein a first fluorescence substance is provided in the first radiation detection apparatus,
wherein a second fluorescence substance is provided in the second radiation detection apparatus, and
wherein the first learning result data and the second learning result data are read based on the first fluorescence substance provided in the first radiation detection apparatus, the second fluorescence substance provided in the second radiation detection apparatus, a radiation detection apparatus used to capture a first medical image, and information regarding a fluorescence substance provided in a the radiation detection apparatus used to capture a the first medical image; and
performing noise reduction processing on the first medical image by inputting the first medical image to a neural network using the first learning result data and the second learning result data read in the reading.
Option 2
Claim 15. A method for processing a medical image, the method comprising:
reading, from a storage unit that stores first learning result data obtained by machine learning using a plurality of medical images captured by a first radiation detection apparatus and second learning result data obtained by machine learning using a plurality of medical images captured by a second radiation detection apparatus, either the first learning result data or the second learning result data,
wherein a first fluorescence substance is provided in the first radiation detection apparatus,
wherein a second fluorescence substance is provided in the second radiation detection apparatus, and
wherein the first learning result data or the second learning result data is read based on the first fluorescence substance provided in the first radiation detection apparatus or thesecond fluorescence substance provided in the second radiation detection apparatus
wherein the first learning result data or the second learning result data is read further based on a radiation detection apparatus used to capture a first medical image[[,]] and information regarding a fluorescence substance provided in [[a]] the first or second radiation detection apparatus used to capture [[a]] the first medical image; and
performing noise reduction processing on the first medical image by inputting the first medical image to a neural network using the first learning result data or the second learning result data read in the reading.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 4-9, and 11-14 are allowed.
Claim 15 would be allowable ….
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claims 1, 4-9, and 11-14 remain allowed for the same reason as indicated in the Notice of Allowance mailed on September 22, 2025 (see pages 5-6).
Claim 15 recites the same allowable subject matter as the allowed claims, but contain indefinite claim language.
In accordance with MPEP §1302.14, the Examiner is of the opinion the actions presented and replies filed by the Applicant make evident the reasons of allowance and satisfy the record as a whole.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SOO J SHIN whose telephone number is (571)272-9753. The examiner can normally be reached M-F; 10-6.
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, Matthew Bella can be reached at (571)272-7778. 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.
/Soo Shin/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2667 571-272-9753
soo.shin@uspto.gov
Prosecution Insights