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 claims 5-8 and added new claim 12. Thus, application has pending claims 1-4 and 9-12.
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 FUKUDA, in combination with KOIKE, Hashimoto, and Majid, disclose the limitation of amended claims 1 and 10-11. Therefore, this action is made FINAL.
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.
Claims 1 and 10-11 recite the limitation “performing a classification … based on the variance value” in pages 2, 3, and 4, respectively. It is unclear if the performing step is using the first, second variance value, or a different variance value. Therefore, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “…a predetermined variance value…” in page 3. It is unclear if the variance value is in reference to the first or second variance value. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 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. The term “assuming” renders the claim indefinite because the claim includes what could only happen under the assumption that a first variance value of one of the region-of-interest images is Fk. It is unclear if the limitation would occur if the first variance value is not assumed, thereby rendering the scope of the claim unascertainable. Appropriate correction is required.
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, 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, Majid MAHROOGHY US-20210035296-A1, hereinafter Majid, and Wataru FUKUDA US-20190221013-A1, hereinafter FUKUDA.
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 a variance value indicating a degree of variation 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.
However, while KOIKE, in combination with Hashimoto and Majid, disclose a variance value indicating a degree of variation (see KOIKE ¶56-57), it fails to explicitly disclose where FUKUDA teaches:calculate, as a feature amount for each of the region-of-interest images, a first variance value that is a variance value of pixel values included in each of the region-of-interest images (see FUKUDA ¶105-106 and FIGS. 13-14, wherein the variance of the values of the pixels included in the tomographic images containing the regions of interest, i.e., region of interest images);calculate a second variance value indicating a degree of variation among the plurality of first variance values calculated for the plurality of the region-of-interest images (see FUKUDA ¶107, in a subsequent step S159, the variance among the regions of interest earlier calculated are ordered in ascending order, including a calculation that the variance of the values of the pixels included in the region of interest for the region including the pixel of the object of interest is large versus the variance of the values of the pixels included in the region of interest for the region of interest that does not include the pixel of the object of interest being small, and accordingly the difference in variance between those two ROIs indicating variation among the pixel values (first variance values) such that ROIs with low variance comparatively are deemed noise pixels, wherein that difference is the second variance value corresponding to the first variance values).
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 FUKUDA’s teaching by including a first and second variance value for the region-of-interest images in order to further determine a change throughout the plurality of tomographic images so as to more easily determine any object of interest.
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 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 3, 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.
Claim 9 is 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 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
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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
Prosecution Insights