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 .
Application has canceled claim 8.
Application has pending claims 1-7 and 9-11.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 10-11 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Therefore, the new reference of KOIKE, in combination with Hashimoto and Majid, disclose the limitation of amended claims 1 and 10-11.
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, 4-5, 7, and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takafumi KOIKE US-20220309671-A1, hereinafter KOIKE, in further view of Hiroshi Hashimoto US-20170200267-A1, hereinafter Hashimoto, and Majid MAHROOGHY US-20210035296-A1, hereinafter Majid.
As per claim 1, KOIKE discloses an image processing apparatus comprising:at least one processor configured to (see KOIKE ¶83) detect a position of a lesion image from a plurality of tomographic images (see KOIKE ¶54, wherein the position of the spicula (or lesion), i.e., calcification, is found in the tomographic images Dj, wherein the calcification image is the images where the spicula is found, such as D2-5 in FIG. 7), which are obtained from a series of a plurality of projection images obtained by tomosynthesis imaging of a breast (see KOIKE ¶48, wherein the tomographic images Dj are obtained from the projection images Gi via tomosynthesis as described in ¶45);
generate a group of images including a plurality of regions-of-interest (see KOIKE ¶52-54, the images in D1-D5 with the detected spicula candidate regions [corresponding to the ROIs] will be used to calculate the change amount of the center position);calculate feature amounts of each of the images containing the regions-of-interest (see KOIKE ¶52-54, wherein the change amount of the center position in the detected spicula candidate region [corresponding to the ROIs] is calculated);calculate a variance value indicating a degree of variation among the feature amounts of the images containing the region-of-interests (see KOIKE ¶56-57 and FIG. 8, e.g. the detected spicula candidate regions K21, K31, and K41 having substantially the same center position are used to calculate a variation wherein a variation within the reference range E is considered to be a normal mammary gland or spicula [corresponding to the indicated degree]).
While KOIKE discloses generating lesion images containing regions-of-interest (see KOIKE ¶52-54, the images in D1-D5 with the detected spicula, or lesion, candidate regions [corresponding to the ROIs] will be used to calculate the change amount of the center position), KOIKE fails to explicitly disclose where Hashimoto teaches:generate a group of images including a plurality of region-of-interest images, each of which includes a calcification image extracted from each of the plurality of projection images based on the detected position of the calcification image (see Hashimoto ¶49 and FIGS. 3-4, wherein the candidate region in the ultrasonic image, where microcalcifications are detected, is cut out and grouped as further disclosed in Hashimoto ¶52. See also Hashimoto ¶69, wherein a plurality of ultrasonic images is generated);
Both KOIKE and Hashimoto discuss detecting a lesion/calcification within a tomographic image candidate region (KOIKE ¶52; Hashimoto ¶50-52), thus it would be obvious to use Hashimoto’s calcification in place of KOIKE’s lesion. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify KOIKE’s apparatus by using Hashimoto’s teaching by including the region of interest images, which includes a calcification image, within the generated group of images for KOIKE’s variation processing in order to save processing time by focusing on the region-of-interest images and aid in patient diagnosis by making the images easier for the clinician to interpret.
Additionally, KOIKE, in combination with Hashimoto, fails to explicitly disclose where Majid teaches:calculate a variance value (see Majid ¶182, wherein features, such as variance, from the ROI are extracted);perform a classification of a shape type of the lesion image into classes based on the variance value (see Majid ¶138, ¶164 and ¶184-186, wherein the classification uses the margin boundary, which comprises morphological features, to determine the shape of the lesion. See also Majid ¶207-209, wherein the crisp contrast, wherein crisp features comprise a variance, i.e., variance value, aids the classification algorithm for discriminating between a benign and malignant lesion [benign and malignant lesions being the two classes]. See further ¶218, wherein crispiness and fuzziness can be used alongside morphological features); anddisplay a result of the classification on a display device (see Majid ¶276 and ¶332, wherein the classification information is displayed to the user).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify KOIKE’s, in combination with Hashimoto, apparatus by using Majid’s teaching by including the classification to the calcification image in order to further measure the degree of damage on the calcification image.
As per claim 2, KOIKE, in combination with Hashimoto and Majid, fails to explicitly disclose where Hashimoto teaches:The image processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to individually generate the group of images for each of a plurality of calcification images in a case where a plurality of positions of calcification images are detected (see Hashimoto ¶49-54 and FIG. 4, wherein the calcification image is acquired and then the microcalcifications in the calcification image are grouped into candidate regions. See ¶69, wherein a plurality of images is disclosed for the microcalcification candidate detection processing).
As per claim 4, KOIKE, in combination with Hashimoto and Majid, discloses the image processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to perform the classification based on a relationship between a predetermined variance value and a shape type of the lesion image (see Majid ¶138, ¶164 and ¶184-186, wherein the classification uses the margin boundary, which comprises morphological features, to determine the shape of the lesion. See also Majid ¶208-209, wherein the crisp contrast aids the classification algorithm. See further ¶218, wherein crispiness and fuzziness can be used alongside morphological features).
As per claim 5, KOIKE, in combination with Hashimoto and Majid, discloses the image processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the feature amount is a variance value of pixel values included in one of the region-of-interest images (see Majid ¶207-209, wherein the crisp features, which are comprised of pixels, can be a variance in the segmentation masks. See prior ¶134 and ¶145, wherein the region of interest is in the masks).
As per claim 7, KOIKE, in combination with Hashimoto and Majid, discloses the image processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the feature amount is the number of pixels having a pixel value equal to or larger than a threshold value among a plurality of pixels included in one of the region-of-interest images (see Majid ¶258-261 and FIGS. 13-16, wherein a threshold value using the mass boundary (MB), which can utilize pixel intensity values as disclosed in ¶145, for the lesion is disclosed, wherein if the average value is above the threshold, it is considered malignant).
As per claims 10-11, the rationale provided in claim 1 is incorporated herein. In addition, KOIKE discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium (see KOIKE ¶42, wherein a storage medium is disclosed) as per claim 11.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KOIKE, in combination with Hashimoto and Majid, in further view of Hiroki NAKAYAMA US-20160249868-A1, hereinafter NAKAYAMA.
As per claim 2, KOIKE, in combination with Hashimoto and Majid, fails to explicitly disclose where NAKAYAMA teaches:The image processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to detect a position where only the calcification image of which a signal value is equal to or smaller than a certain value (see NAKAYAMA ¶66, wherein a first size threshold, i.e., signal value, is disclosed. See further NAKAYAMA ¶115, wherein the part-of-interest detection unit selects the mutation site [a position] where size detection is a first size, which can be equal to or less than 10 pixels).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify KOIKE’s, in combination with Hashimoto and Majid, apparatus by using NAKAYAMA’s teaching by including a signal value to the detected position of the calcification image in order to obtain a signal or threshold strength to confirm the detected calcification.
Claims 6 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KOIKE, in combination with Hashimoto and Majid, in further view of Dong-xu HAN CN-113808101-A, hereinafter HAN.
As per claim 6, KOIKE, in combination with Hashimoto and Majid, fails to explicitly disclose where HAN teaches: the image processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the feature amount is a variance value of pixel values included in one of the region-of-interest images with respect to an average value of pixel values in a breast region of one of the projection images (see Han bottom of page 5/21, wherein the calcification candidate points are acquired from the average pixel brightness value and contrast variance from the image. See also bottom of page 5/21 and FIG. 2, wherein the calcification region is disclosed, i.e., region of interest. See prior bottom of page 4/21, wherein the ultrasonic image of the mammary nodule is disclosed, i.e., breast region of the projection image).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify KOIKE’s, in combination with Hashimoto and Majid, apparatus by using HAN’s teaching by modifying the feature amount with respect to an average value of pixel values in the breast region in order to surmise the number of pixels for faster computation.
As per claim 9, KOIKE, in combination with Hashimoto and Majid, fails to explicitly disclose where HAN teaches:The image processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to highlight and display the calcification image having a specific shape based on the shape type determination result in the display processing (see HAN page 6/21, wherein the calcification point boundary shape is calculated. See further HAN page 7/21 and FIGS. 3-4, wherein the calcification areas are displayed as brighter regions, as shown in FIG. 4, or with a box around them, as shown in FIG. 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify KOIKE, in combination with Hashimoto and Majid, apparatus by using HAN’s teaching by including a highlight and display to the shape determination result in order to more easily identify the calcification in the image.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Bradley Obas Felix whose telephone number is (703)756-1314. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 EST.
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, Vincent Rudolph can be reached at 5712728243. 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.
/BRADLEY O FELIX/Examiner, Art Unit 2671
/VINCENT RUDOLPH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2671