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 .
Response to Amendment
In response to the amendments of claims 3 and 9, and the cancellation of claims 4 and 10, the rejections of claims 3 and 9 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). Furthermore, Examiner notes and appreciates Applicant’s amendment including a definite set of “checking” steps within the independent claims in response to the original rejections of now-canceled claims 4 and 10.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 25 August 2025 have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
Response to the 112(b) rejection
The amendment of 8/25/2025 replaces “lateral costal transvers sinus” with “costodiaphragmatic recess”, with a general citation to what appears to be a Korean medical dictionary. No pertinent copy of any portion of that publication is provided. The newly added language is understood to have the meaning given at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Costodiaphragmatic_recess (copy attached to this action). However, there is no meaningful evidence that this is the same meaning as the original specification. The 35 USC 112(b) rejection is withdrawn; however, a 35 USC 112(a) rejection and an objection to the specification have been added as the ”costodiaphragmatic recess” appears to be new matter. Rephrasing a bit, this is not a complaint about the technological accuracy of the new language. The problem is that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have recognized possession of this aspect of the invention from the specification as filed. Among the ways this might be overcome are:
– Evidence that this was a translation error from the non-English language priority document
– An affidavit from one skilled in the art that the two terms have the same meaning
Evidence from the cited Korean dictionary that the two terms were understood to be synonymous
At present the record simply suggests the terms have different meanings.
Response to arguments with respect to 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection
Regarding the rejection of original claims 1-12 under 35 U.S.C. 101, Applicant’s argue that:
“chest x-rays are subjectively read by observers, such as radiologists, clinicians, or the like”
“due to differences in the observer’s[sic] careers and experience, there can be deviations in the accuracy…especially when the image quality is low”
“the feature of the claimed method [with respect to the evaluation of the chest image] could not practically be done through a mental process of a human”
Respectfully, Examiner disagrees.
The first two arguments simply identify what the Applicant has alleged as the shortcomings of the current workflow of interventional radiology analysis of the quality of chest x-ray inspiration images. The claims do not include the features that would do better other than (arguably) “do it on a computer”. While a computer has algorithms, any diagnosis that follows a rational methodology also has an algorithm. The third argument alleges that, due to the aforementioned shortcomings, the claimed method could not be performed by the human mind. However, because a judicial exception is not eligible subject matter, Bilski, 561 U.S. at 601, 95 USPQ2d at 1005-06 (quoting Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. at 309, 206 USPQ at 197 (1980)), if there are no additional claim elements besides the judicial exception, or if the additional claim elements merely recite another judicial exception, that is insufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (See MPEP § 2106.04). Consequently, all of the steps of all of the claims of the method and system of the instant application could be performed by a human with the assistance of pen and paper, and any additional subject matter stated is simply the application of a computer/processor to perform a mental process. Although the clinical analysis of chest X-rays may be a subjective process as Applicant alleges, a radiologist, clinician, or human being having ordinary skill in the art would be able to easily follow the method steps as disclosed as a part of a mental process, and no additional elements are recited that would integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application. Thus, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 is maintained, as specified below.
Response to arguments with respect to prior art rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 103
Applicant’s arguments were filed 8/25/2025 regarding amendments to independent claims 1 and 7 and dependent claims 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, and 14. However, regarding Applicant’s assertions that the prior arts Young, Candemir, and von Berg fail, either in part or in combination, to teach or suggest the method and system recited by the instant application, Applicant has not provided any rationale or evidence to support this conclusory statement. The Examiner maintains that the combined teaches of Young, Candemir, and von Berg do indeed teach the newly added features of the claims as detailed below.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 7 are objected to because of the following informalities:
The phrasing of independent claims 1 and 7 is grammatically unclear, as the result of an extended set of limitations not clearly separated using consistent punctuation. As best understood by the examiner as a result of the prior claim set and the Specification, the limitations of claims 1 and 7 are:
“extracting a lung region from a chest radiographic image;
detecting a rib cage from the extracted lung region;
analyzing a degree of inspiration when the chest radiographic image is captured;
and using an algorithm to evaluate the quality of the chest radiographic image based on
a range in which lungs are included in the chest radiographic image identified from the extracted lung region, whether a patient's posture identified from the detected rib cage is aligned, and the degree of inspiration, wherein the evaluating of the quality comprises: checking whether distances between a spinous process of a thoracic vertebra and inner ends of both clavicles are the same in the chest radiographic image; checking positions of scapulae in the chest radiographic image; and checking whether the patient’s posture is aligned based on whether the distances are the same and the positions of the scapulae”
The current recitation of claims 1 and 7 renders this unclear, although not indefinite. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
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.
35 U.S.C. 101 requires that a claimed invention must fall within one of the four eligible categories of invention (i.e. process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter) and must not be directed to subject matter encompassing a judicially recognized exception as interpreted by the courts. MPEP 2106. Three categories of subject matter are found to be judicially recognized exceptions to 35 U.S.C. § 101 (i.e., patent ineligible) (1) laws of nature, (2) physical phenomena, and (3) abstract ideas. MPEP 2106(II). To be patent-eligible, a claim directed to a judicial exception must as whole be integrated into a practical application or directed to significantly more than the exception itself (MPEP 2106). Hence, the claim must describe a process or product that applies the exception in a meaningful way, such that it is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without integration into a practical application or recitation of significantly more.
In the analysis below, the method of independent claim 1 is considered representative of independent claims 1 and 7, since all of the independent claims recite identical steps despite being directed to different statutory matter; thus, the claims pass Step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility test.
Step 2A prong 1 analysis
The independent claims are directed to a method of and apparatus for evaluating inspiration-level quality comprising: “extracting a lung region from a chest radiographic image; detecting a rib cage from the extracted lung region; analyzing a degree of inspiration when the chest radiographic image is captured; and evaluating quality of the chest radiographic image based on a range in which lungs are included in the chest radiographic image identified from the extracted lung region, whether a patient's posture identified from the detected rib cage is aligned, and the degree of inspiration, using an algorithm for evaluating the quality of the chest radiographic image, and wherein the evaluating of the quality comprises: checking whether distances between a spinous process of a thoracic vertebra and inner ends of both clavicles are the same in the chest radiographic image; checking positions of scapulae in the chest radiographic image; and checking whether the patient’s posture is aligned based on whether the distances are the same and the positions of the scapulae”
The limitations of “extracting a lung region from a chest radiographic image; detecting a rib cage from the extracted lung region; analyzing a degree of inspiration when the chest radiographic image is captured; and evaluating quality of the chest radiographic image.” as drafted, are processes that, under broadest reasonable interpretation, cover the performance of the limitation in the mind which falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. (While the claims include an x-ray image, the production of x-ray images and analysis of the images by e.g. a physician was old and well known at the time of filing. This would include the physician looking at the x-ray and considering its significance.) The limitations of “extracting a lung region from a chest radiographic image” can be considered to be an observation in the human mind, since a person can visually observe and identify a lung region from a chest radiographic image through observed pixel intensity differences (i.e. brightness of portions of the image) between the brighter ribs and the darker lung outlines. The limitations of “detecting a rib cage from the extracted lung region” can be considered to be an observation in the human mind, since a person can visually observe and identify the rib cage through basic anatomical knowledge of the shape of the ribs and the observation of pixel intensity differences between the brighter ribs and the darker lung outlines. The limitations of “analyzing a degree of inspiration when the chest radiographic image is captured” can be considered to be an observation in the human mind, as one having obvious skill in the art would know that analysis of degree of inspiration is determined by the mental process of counting the number of ribs in the ribcage down to the diaphragm, wherein complete normal inspiration is identified by the intersection of the diaphragm and the 5th to 7th anterior ribs (“Chest X-Ray Quality”, Radiology Masterclass). The limitations of “evaluating quality of the chest radiographic image based on a range in which lungs are included in the chest radiographic image identified from the extracted lung region, whether a patient's posture identified from the detected rib cage is aligned, and the degree of inspiration” are mental observation, as the range in which lungs are included in the chest radiographic image can be visually delineated or marked using pen and paper, a patient’s aligned posture can be determined on the basis of the observation of the alignment of the ribs, and the degree of inspiration can be determined based on the observation of the intersection of the diaphragm and ribs, are all performable mentally. The limitations of “using an algorithm for evaluating the quality of the chest radiographic image” are mental process as an algorithm, by definition, is a process or set of steps used to solve a problem, and chest radiographic image quality evaluation based on inspiration level is a well-known process in the art (as described both above and below). The limitations of “wherein the evaluating of the quality comprises checking whether distances between a spinous process of a thoracic vertebra and inner ends of both clavicles are the same in the chest radiographic image checking positions of scapulae in the chest radiographic image; and checking whether the patient’s posture is aligned based on whether the distances are the same and the positions of the scapulae” are all mental processes and observations which can be performed using a pen and paper. Checking whether distances between a spinous process of a thoracic vertebra and inner ends of both clavicles are the same can be performed using a pen and paper, either with a measurement tool such as a ruler, or using visual distance estimation. Checking the positions of the scapulae in the chest radiographic image to check whether the patient's posture is aligned can also be performed visually, or using pen and paper with a ruler and protractor. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
As such, the analysis under prong one of step 2A of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test does not result in a conclusion of eligibility (See flowchart in MPEP 2106).
Additional elements
Independent claim 7 also recites the additional elements of a memory configured to store a quality evaluation algorithm for chest radiography images, an input unit configured to generate a quality evaluation request signal for a chest radiographic image and a control unit configured to execute the method of claim 1.
Regarding interpretation of the terms “input unit” and “control unit” in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, examiner is interpreting “input unit” as a peripheral device which generates an input signal based on an input, such as a mouse or keyboard (page 6 lines 19-22). Examiner is interpreting “control unit” as a unit comprising a feature detection unit and a quality analysis unit interfaced with a memory unit and a display (page1, table 1, and col. 8 line 1-col. 9 line 13).
Step 2A prong 2:
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Each of the other additional elements present in claim 7 (memory, input unit, control unit) similarly amounts to merely using a computer as a tool to perform the claimed mental process. Implementing an abstract idea on a computer does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Moreover, the additional elements of the claims do not recite an improvement in the functioning of a computer or other technology or technical field, the claimed steps are not performed using a particular machine, the claimed steps do not effect a transformation, and the claims do not apply the judicial exception in any meaningful way beyond generically linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Therefore, the analysis under prong two of step 2A of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test does not result in a conclusion of eligibility since the additional steps do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B:
Each of the other additional elements (memory, input unit, control unit) are typical computer features which perform generic computer functions that are well- understood, routine, and conventional and do not amount to more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation, and mere implementation on a generic computer does not add significantly more to the claims. Accordingly, the analysis under step 2B of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test does not result in a conclusion of eligibility (See flowchart in MPEP 2106).
Claims 3 and 9 recite “wherein the evaluating of the quality [by the control unit] includes checking that a 1st rib, a costodiaphragmatic recess, and all remaining ribs are included in the chest radiographic image to identify the range in which the lungs are included in the chest radiographic image”. Checking that a 1st rib, a costodiaphragmatic recess, and all remaining ribs are included in the chest radiographic image to identify the range in which the lungs are included in the chest radiographic image can all be performed using mental observation. Verification of the presence of the specified anatomical features (1st rib, costodiaphragmatic recess, remaining ribs) can be performed by visually identifying the elements in the image. The claims do not recite any additional elements beyond these mental processes.
Claims 5 and 11 recite “wherein the evaluating of the quality includes checking whether a contact point between a vertical line at a center of the clavicle and a right diaphragm in the chest radiographic image is lower than a lower edge of a posterior 10th rib to check the degree of inspiration”. Checking whether a contact point between a vertical line at a center of the clavicle and a right diaphragm in the chest radiographic image is lower than a lower edge of a posterior 10th rib to check the degree of inspiration can be performed through a mental and visual observation, possibly assisted by pen and paper. The claims do not recite any additional elements beyond these mental processes.
Claims 6 and 12 recite “the evaluating of the quality includes analyzing positions of the ribs and checking the number of the ribs on the basis of brightness of pixels in a y-axis direction for the ribs crossing the vertical line among the ribs identified in the chest radiographic image to evaluate the quality”. Analyzing positions of the ribs and checking the number of ribs on the basis of brightness of pixels in a y-axis direction for the ribs crossing the vertical line among the ribs identified in the chest radiographic image to evaluate the quality can be performed by a mental and visual observation of the brighter bands across the midline representing the rib cage and counting, assisted by pen and paper. The claims do not recite any additional elements beyond these mental processes.
Specification
The amendment filed August 25, 2025 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows: “costodiaphragmatic recess”.
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 3 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. As described above, the amendment of August 25, 2025 replaced the term “lateral costal transverse sinus” with the term “costodiaphragmatic recess”. There is no indication that one of ordinary skill in the art would have regarded the originally filed specification as showing possession of “costodiaphragmatic recess” in the claimed context.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, and 13, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Young et al. (US PG Pub 20180325481, hereafter referred to as Young) in view of von Berg et al. (“Robust Chest X-ray Quality Assessment using Convolutional Neural Networks and Atlas Regularization”, Medical Imaging, 2020, hereafter referred to as von Berg) and in further view of Chen et al. (Chinese PG Pub 113592834, hereafter referred to as Chen).
Regarding claim 1, Young discloses a method of evaluating inspiration-level quality, the method comprising extracting a lung region from a chest radiographic image (Figs. 1a and 2a, wherein fig 1a is a good-quality x-ray image of the lung in inspiration and figure 2a is a representation of the lung in inspiration, and paras. 0045-0046), detecting a rib cage from the extracted lung region (para. 0046, “In the inspiration state, the curve of the rib bones from anterior to posterior can clearly be seen”), analyzing a degree of inspiration when the chest radiographic image is captured (paras. 0049 and 0077, wherein para. 0049 describes a representation of the lungs in inspiration with geometric division lines and highlights for quality criteria identification, and para. 0077 describes the “good quality” condition for intersection between the ribs and diaphragm in the image) and evaluating quality of the chest radiographic image (paras. 0049 and 0051, wherein para. 0049 describes a representation of the lungs in inspiration with geometric division lines and highlights for quality criteria identification, and para. 0051 is an overall description of the quality determination method of thoracic x-ray images using the line intersection method). Young further discloses wherein evaluating of the quality includes evaluating the quality on the basis of a range in which lungs are included in the chest radiographic image identified from the extracted lung region (figs. 1a and 1b elements 10 ad 14, wherein 1a is an x-ray image of lungs in inhalation,1b is an x-ray image of lungs in exhalation, element 10 is the inspiration lung field, and element 14 is the exhalation lung field), whether a patient’s posture identified from the detected rib cage is aligned (para. 0121, wherein the posture is detected through the intersection of the clavicular and diaphragm dividing lines), and the degree of inspiration (paras. 0049 and 0077, wherein para. 0049 describes a representation of the lungs in inspiration with geometric division lines and highlights for quality criteria identification, and para. 0077 describes the “good quality” condition for intersection between the ribs and diaphragm in the image), and using an algorithm for evaluating the quality of the chest radiographic image (para. 0005).
Young does not disclose wherein the evaluating of the quality comprises checking whether distances between a spinous process of a thoracic vertebra and inner ends of both clavicles are the same in the chest radiographic image, checking positions of scapulae in the chest radiographic image; and checking whether the patient’s posture is aligned based on whether the distances are the same and the positions of the scapulae.
However, von Berg discloses wherein further quality evaluation comprises checking whether distances between a spinous process of a thoracic vertebra and inner ends of both clavicles are the same in the chest radiographic image (Section 2, “Methods”, and figure 1, wherein the presence of the clavicles and symmetry between inner ends of the clavicles and the spinous process of the vertebra is calculated as a quality measure), and checking whether the patient’s posture is aligned based on whether the distances are the same (Section 2, “Methods”, and figure 1, wherein the presence of the clavicles and symmetry between inner ends of the clavicles and the spinous process of the vertebra is calculated as a quality measure). Specifically, von Berg discloses a chest X-ray quality assessment method employing CNNs and an atlas regularization method. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adapt F-Nets CNN feature detection algorithm of von Berg as the object detection method of extracting the lung region from the chest required by the method of Young as the use of the known technique of von Berg to improve the similar method of Young in a predictable way, specifically, that the modified method of Young would be able to reliably extract the lung region from chest radiographic images with a high degree of accuracy.
Young and von Berg do not disclose wherein further quality evaluation comprises checking the positions of the scapulae for posture alignment determination.
However, Chen discloses wherein quality evaluation of a chest radiographic image comprises checking the positions of the scapulae for posture alignment determination (paras. 0137-0138, wherein scapular position is detected, classified as normal/abnormal, and subsequent feedback is given to the overall posture and quality determination mechanism). Specifically, Chen discloses a method and system of determining quality of a chest x-ray image utilizing segmentation and identification of different elements within the x-ray image. Thus, Young and von Berg and Chen all disclose methods and systems of chest x-ray quality determination utilizing the presence of specific anatomical features within a radiographic image. Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the scapula position detection and checking of Chen within the method and system of Young as modified by von Berg as the application of a known method to a known device ready for improvement to yield the predictable result of a more robust posture detection and quality determination system for chest x-rays; specifically, scapular position determination as disclosed by Chen would allow for the detection of slouching, hyperextension, leaning, or other posture issues which would act as indicators of lowered chest x-ray inspiration image quality.
Claim 7 is rejected, mutatis mutandis, for reasoning similar to claim 1 above. Furthermore, Young discloses an apparatus comprising: an input unit configured to generate a quality evaluation request signal for a chest radiographic image (para. 0160 and fig. 7 elements 76 and 78, wherein element 76 is a keyboard and element 78 is a mouse, either of which provides an input to generate a request signal for a chest radiographic image), a memory configured to store an algorithm for evaluating quality of the chest radiographic image (para. 0163); and a control unit (paras. 0156-0160, and fig. 7 element 68, wherein element 68 is an apparatus configured to assess the quality of the image according to a rib intersection rule and a predetermined x-ray image inhalation quality measure).
Regarding claims 3 and 9, Young and von Berg and Chen disclose all limitations of claims 1 and 7, respectively. Young further discloses wherein the control unit checks that a 1st rib (paras. 0011-0015, “first rib line has a first intersection condition rule”, wherein “first” refers to the uppermost rib), a costodiaphragmatic recess (paras. 0074-0087, wherein an intersection of one or more of the sixth through tenth rib lines is detected and categorized into “good” and “poor” inspiration depending on the extent of expansion and which rib line is noted to intersect with the diaphragm; and wherein the angle noted between the rib line intersection and the portion of the diaphragm is the costophrenic angle, a representation of the costodiaphragmatic recess within a 2D x-ray and which would necessarily be visible), and all ribs are included in the chest radiographic image to identify the range in which the lungs are included in the chest radiographic image (paras. 0074-0087 and figs. 4a, 4b, 5a, and 5b, wherein the rib pairs are detected from top to bottom depending on midline and diaphragm intersections, and wherein all pairs of ribs are detected to examine the inspiration level and state, which would encompass the range that the lungs are present within).
Regarding claims 5 and 11, Young and von Berg and Chen discloses all limitations of claims 1 and 7, respectively. Young further discloses wherein the [control unit’s] evaluating of the quality includes checking whether a contact point between a vertical line at a center of the clavicle and a right diaphragm in the chest radiographic image is lower than a lower edge of a posterior 10" rib to check the degree of inspiration (para. 0050 for the right clavicular dividing line, paras. 0110-0112 for the detection of the contact point between a vertical line at the center of the clavicle and the right diaphragm detection process, and para. 0018, wherein the tenth rib line satisfies the intersection condition with the diaphragm line).
Regarding claim 13, Young and von Berg and Chen disclose all limitations of claim 7. Von Berg further discloses wherein the control unit extracts the lung region from the chest radiographic image using an object recognition algorithm (Sections 2.1 and 2.3, wherein the object detection algorithm is the disclosed feature detection based on the F-nets convolutional neural network, and the algorithm extracts lung border segments and lung arcs, among other features, as shown in Figure 2). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the object recognition algorithm of von Berg within the method of Young and von Berg and Chen according to the rationale of claim 1.
Claims 6, 12, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Young in view of von Berg and Chen and in further view of Candemir et al. (“Atlas-based rib-bone detection in chest X-rays”, Computerized Medical Imaging and Graphics, Vol. 51, pgs. 32-39, 2016).
Regarding claims 6 and 12, Young and von Berg and Chen disclose all limitations of claims 5 and 11, respectively.
Young and von Berg and Chen do not disclose analyzing positions of the ribs and checking the number of the ribs on the basis of brightness of pixels in a y-axis direction for the ribs crossing the vertical line among the ribs identified in the chest radiographic image to evaluate the quality.
However, Candemir discloses analyzing positions of the ribs and checking the number of the ribs on the basis of brightness of pixels in a y-axis direction for the ribs crossing the vertical line among the ribs identified in the chest radiographic image to evaluate the quality (Sections 3.3, 4.1, and 4.2, specifically wherein 3.3 describes a Canny Edge detection algorithm for rib edge pixel detection across the y-axis (central dividing line of the sternum), 4.1 discloses an experimental setup, and 4.2 discloses a rib-bone probability map based on probabilistically modelling the edges of ribs).
Specifically, Candemir discloses a rib-bone detection method for chest x-ray images. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adapt the intensity-based rib position and count method of Candemir as the method of checking the number of ribs within the quality evaluation algorithm of Young in view of von Berg and Chen as the use of the known technique of Candemir to improve the similar method of Young in view of von Berg and Chen in a predictable way, specifically, that the modified method of Young in view of von Berg and Chen would be able to reliably detect and count rib numbers for robust quality assurance within chest radiographic images.
Regarding Claim 14, Young and von Berg and Chen disclose all limitations of claim 7. Young and von Berg and Chen do not disclose wherein the control unit detects the rib cage from the lung region using an image binarization and noise removal algorithm.
However, Candemir discloses wherein the control unit detects the rib cage from the lung region using an image binarization and noise removal algorithm (Section 3.3, specifically with regards to the binarized image of the patient X-ray present in figure 5 used for Canny Edge detection, and the bilateral filtering applied in conjunction, serving as a noise reduction component to the algorithm). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the binarization and noise reduction method of Candemir as the rib detection method of Young according to the rationale of claim 6.
Conclusion
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 ROHAN TEJAS MUKUNDHAN whose telephone number is (571)272-2368. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9AM - 6PM.
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, Gregory Morse can be reached at 5712723838. 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.
/ROHAN TEJAS MUKUNDHAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2663
/GREGORY A MORSE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2698