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 .
DETAILED 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 final rejection. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/19/2025 has been entered.
Art Unit – Location
The Art Unit location of your application in the USPTO may have changed. To aid in correlating any papers for this application, all further correspondence regarding this application should be directed to Art Unit 2682.
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-20 are pending in this application.
Amendments to the Claims
Claims 1, 3, 17, and 18 have been amended. Claims 19 and 20 are new.
Response to Remarks/Arguments on the Merit
Please refer to the following references cited in the Final Office Action Dated 9/19/2025.
Fukuda (US 2017/0071554 A1) “Fukuda ‘554”
Chen et al. (US 2009/0041327 A1) “Chen”
Fukuda (US 2018/0055459 A1) “Fukuda ‘459”
The Applicant’s arguments, on pages 7 through 9 of the Remarks section filed on 12/19/2025 are fully considered, with respect to claims 1, 17, and 18.
Independent claims 1, 17, and 18 have been rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Fukuda ‘554 in view of Chen in view of Fukuda ‘459.
The Applicant argues: the combination of Fukuda ‘554. Chen, and Fukuda ‘459 do not teach to select an image: “on the basis of the feature amount and the detected structure of interest”
The Examiner responds: In this Office Action, Fukuda ‘554 teaches a feature amount as a “pixel value” [0133] and a detected structure of interest as “calcification [0133].
The Applicant argues: The high frequency linear structure and a structure of interest are not combined into a single composite two-dimensional image.
The Examiner responds: Fukuda ‘554 derives a two-dimensional image [0133]. Fukuda ‘459 generates composite images from different image planes [0018], [0035]-[0040], and [0074].
Response to Remarks/Arguments on the Merit (Claims)
The claim amendments with respect to claims 1-20 are addressed in the sections below entitled “Claim Rejections”. The Examiner maps references to the Applicant's claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because:
The claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The claim(s) recite(s) mathematical concepts, a mental process, or certain methods of organizing human activity. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the abstract idea does not appear to have a result.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the image processing device is generic and lacks detailed improvements to the image processing device.
Step 1. Are the claims are directed to a Process, Machine, and Article of Manufacture? Yes.
Step 2A. Prong 1. The invention comprises an Abstract Idea of: Mathematical Concepts and a Mental Process.
Mathematical Concepts of: “generate … images”, “derive a linear structure”, “derive a feature amount”, “detect a structure of interest”, and “derive a composite two-dimensional image”.
Please refer to MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) I C. e.g. “Mathematical Calculations”.
A Mental Process of: “select at least one … image” to “correspond to mutually different tomographic planes” and “detect a structure of interest”. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III B. e.g. “A Claim That Encompasses a Human Performing the Step(s) Mentally With or Without a Physical Aid Recites a Mental Process”.
Step 2A Prong 2. Are there are no additional elements which are directed to integration into a practical application? No. The claims are not tied to a particular machine or transformation. There is no technical improvement to the claimed image processing device. 2106.04(d)(1), 2106.05
Step 2B. Are there additional elements that amount to significantly more?
The claims cite a process which can be performed by a human using mathematical concepts and mental processes with no significant resulting output of the image analysis. There appears to be mathematical and mental processing of images, which are well understood for two-dimensional image composition without an unconventional and significant improvement. MPEP 2106.05.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-4, 7, 8, 11, 12, 17, 18, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukuda (US 2017/0071554 A1) “Fukuda” in view of Chen et al. (US 2009/0041327 A1) “Chen” and further in view of Fukuda (US 2018/0055459 A1) “Fukuda ‘459”
1. Fukuda ‘554 teaches: An image processing device ("COMPUTER 2” FIG. 1) comprising: at least one processor ("the computer 2 may include processors for executing the image obtaining operation" [0102]), configured
to generate a plurality of tomographic images ("plurality of projection images" [ABSTRACT]) indicating tomographic planes ("G1"… Gn” [FIG. 4]) of an object ("breast " [0089]) by reconstructing a plurality of projection images (“reconstruction unit reconstructs the band projection images” [ABSTRACT] i.e. "slice planes" [0025]).
to derive a ("a differential filter, for example, to detect an edge, which is the structure of the subject where there is a sudden change in the pixel value that exceeds a predetermined threshold value " [0120]) from each of a plurality of tomographic images ("the pixel values projected on the slice plane Tj " [0120]) for "a plurality of projection images Gi (step ST1) " [0138]).
Fukuda ‘554 does not explicitly teach: a linear structure to derive a feature amount indicating features of the linear structure from the linear structure image.
However, Chen teaches: a linear structure to derive a feature amount indicating features of the linear structure from the linear structure image ("linear structure verifier” for “verifying linear structure" [ABSTRACT] where “FIG. 17 is an illustration of exemplary mammograms with linear structures [0034].).
The filter which detects a high frequency edge of a structure of Fukuda ‘554 can be modified by Chen to identify high frequency linear structures.
The motivation for the combination is provided by Chen “a need exists for an improved approach for image linear structure verification in mammography.” [0011].
The combination of Fukuda ‘554 and Chen teach:
to derive a feature amount ("pixel value" [0006], [0133] of Fukuda ‘554.) indicating features of the linear("calcification" of the “breast” [0133] of Fukuda ‘554.).
to detect a structure of interest ("calcification" [0133] in a tomographic image of Fukuda ‘554.) from the tomographic image or high-frequency tomographic image:
to select at least one tomographic image or the high-frequency tomographic image on the basis of the feature amount ("pixel value" [0133] of Fukuda ‘554.) and the detected structure of interest ("calcification" [0133] of Fukuda ‘554.) for each corresponding pixel in each of the tomographic images or the high-frequency tomographic images ("calcification in the breast M includes relatively small structures. In order to facilitate seeing such calcification in a tomographic image, the band tomographic images TLj-k for relatively high frequency bands are multiplied with weights W greater than one to emphasize and increase the pixel values" [0133] of Fukuda ‘554.. "each of the band tomographic images TLj-k for desired frequency bands is multiplied with a weight W to change the emphasis level, and then frequency synthesis of the band tomographic images TLj-k is performed to generate the tomographic image TGj" [0133] of Fukuda ‘554. The selection is based on the weighting of the pixels, i.e. pixel values. In the case of calcification, the image selection is for pixel weights greater than one.);
The combination of Fukuda ‘554 and Chen do not explicitly teach:
To derive a composite two-dimensional image on the basis of the selected tomographic images or high-frequency tomographic images.
wherein the high-frequency tomographic images indicate high-frequency components of the tomographic images, and wherein the selected tomographic images or high-frequency tomographic images correspond to mutually different tomographic planes.
However, Fukuda ‘459 teaches: To derive a composite two-dimensional image on the basis of the selected tomographic images or high-frequency tomographic images.
wherein the high-frequency tomographic images indicate high-frequency components of the tomographic images, and wherein the selected tomographic images or high-frequency tomographic images correspond to mutually different tomographic planes. ("the frequency synthesizing unit may generate the composite two-dimensional image by reducing a weighting of a band synthesized two-dimensional image from a highest frequency band to a predetermined frequency band." [0018]; “the two-dimensional image generation unit may generate the band synthesized two-dimensional image using a minimum value projection method for a band tomographic image from a highest frequency band to a predetermined frequency band, and generate the band synthesized two-dimensional image using a projection method different from the minimum value projection method for band tomographic images of other frequency bands.” [0027] and [0035]-[0040], [0074]. )
The bands which generate slice planes of a tomographic image of Fukuda ‘554 can be modified by Fukuda ‘459 to generate a composite image from different tomographic planes having high frequency components.
The motivation for the combination is provided by Fukuda ‘459 to reduce “a problem that a reconstructed tomographic image is blurred due to the mechanical error of the imaging apparatus and the influence of body motion of the subject due to the time difference of imaging at each of a plurality of radiation source positions.” [0004].
Therefore, the Applicant’s claimed invention would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and the claim is rejected.
2. The image processing device according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to select the at least one tomographic image or high-frequency tomographic image including the linear structure and to derive the composite two-dimensional image on the basis of a pre-composite image generated in advance on the basis of the tomographic images or the high-frequency tomographic images and the selected tomographic images or high-frequency tomographic images ("Then, the pixel value at each coordinate position of interest is calculated by generating a regression surface by regression analysis, for example, based on the pixel values of the band projection images Li-k projected in a predetermined range relative to the coordinate position of interest on the slice plane Tj " [0142] of Fukuda ‘554. The slice plane Ti is a pre-composite image upon which to register coordinates of slice planes.) .
Therefore, the Applicant’s claimed invention would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and the claim is rejected.
3. The image processing device according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to select for each corresponding pixel in each of the tomographic images or the high-frequency tomographic images, the tomographic image or the high-frequency tomographic image from which the structure of interest has been detected, with higher priority than the tomographic image or the high-frequency tomographic image including the linear structure. (" In order to facilitate seeing such calcification in a tomographic image, the band tomographic images TLj-k for relatively high frequency bands are multiplied with weights W greater than one to emphasize and increase the pixel values of the band tomographic images TLj-k. " [0133] of Fukuda ‘554. Weighting greater than one indicates a higher priority.) .
Therefore, the Applicant’s claimed invention would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and the claim is rejected.
4. The image processing device according to claim 3, wherein the object is a breast, and the structure of interest is a calcification (" For example, calcification in the breast M includes relatively small structures. In order to facilitate seeing such calcification in a tomographic image, the band tomographic images TLj-k for relatively high frequency bands are multiplied with weights W greater than one to emphasize and increase the pixel values of the band tomographic images TLj-k. " [0133] of Fukuda ‘554.) .
Therefore, the Applicant’s claimed invention would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and the claim is rejected.
7. The image processing device according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to derive a pixel value of the linear structure image as the feature amount ("the slice plane Tj may be filtered with a differential filter, for example, to detect an edge, which is the structure of the subject where there is a sudden change in the pixel value that exceeds a predetermined threshold value " [0120] of Fukuda ‘554 and the structure is linear of Chen.)
Therefore, the Applicant’s claimed invention would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and the claim is rejected.
8. The image processing device according to claim 2, wherein the processor is configured to derive a pixel value of the linear structure image as the feature amount. (" pixel value" [0006], [0133] of Fukuda ‘554.)
Therefore, the Applicant’s claimed invention would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and the claim is rejected.
11. The image processing device according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to convert a pixel value of the linear structure image to derive the feature amount ("tomographic images TLj-k for all the frequency bands are multiplied with the weights W to change the emphasis levels. " [0133] of Fukuda ‘554.)
Therefore, the Applicant’s claimed invention would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and the claim is rejected.
12. Claim 12 has been analyzed in view of claims 1, 2, and 11 and is rejected in a similar manner.
Therefore, the Applicant’s claimed invention would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and the claim is rejected.
17. The image processing method of claim 17 has been analyzed in view of the method of Fukuda ‘554 “METHOD” [TITLE] and further in view of claim 1. Claim 17 is rejected in a similar manner to claim 1.
Therefore, the Applicant’s claimed invention would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and the claim is rejected.
18. The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 18 has been analyzed in view of the recording medium of Fukuda ‘554 “RECORDING MEDIUM” [TITLE] and further in view of claim 1. Claim 18 is rejected in a similar manner to claim 1.
Therefore, the Applicant’s claimed invention would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and the claim is rejected.
19. The image processing device according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to select, for each corresponding pixel in each of the tomographic images or the high-frequency tomographic images, based on prioritizing which structure, the tomographic image or the high-frequency tomographic image includes, the structure including at least one of the linear structure or the structure of interest (" the band tomographic images TLj-k for all the frequency bands are multiplied with the weights W to change the emphasis levels … calcification in the breast M includes relatively small structures. In order to facilitate seeing such calcification in a tomographic image, the band tomographic images TLj-k for relatively high frequency bands are multiplied with weights W greater than one to emphasize and increase the pixel values of the band tomographic images… In order to diminish the relatively large structures, as well as the density irregularity in an image and the discrepancy in density between images, the band tomographic images TLj-k for the relatively low frequency bands are multiplied with weights W smaller than one to diminish and reduce pixel values of the band tomographic images… a weight W of one will result in substantially no change in the emphasis level." [0133] of Fukuda ‘554.) .
Therefore, the Applicant’s claimed invention would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and the claim is rejected.
20. The image processing device according to claim 1, wherein the image processing device according to wherein the processor is configured to derive a composite two-dimensional image on the basis of the selected tomographic images or high-frequency tomographic images, and low- frequency tomographic images indicating low-frequency components of the tomographic images (" the band tomographic images TLj-k for all the frequency bands are multiplied with the weights W to change the emphasis levels … calcification in the breast M includes relatively small structures. In order to facilitate seeing such calcification in a tomographic image, the band tomographic images TLj-k for relatively high frequency bands are multiplied with weights W greater than one to emphasize and increase the pixel values of the band tomographic images… In order to diminish the relatively large structures, as well as the density irregularity in an image and the discrepancy in density between images, the band tomographic images TLj-k for the relatively low frequency bands are multiplied with weights W smaller than one to diminish and reduce pixel values of the band tomographic images… a weight W of one will result in substantially no change in the emphasis level." [0133] of Fukuda ‘554.) .
Therefore, the Applicant’s claimed invention would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and the claim is rejected.
Claims 5, 6, 9, 10, and 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukuda (US 2017/0071554 A1) “Fukuda ‘554” in view of Chen et al. (US 2009/0041327 A1) “Chen” in view of Fukuda (US 2018/0055459 A1) “Fukuda ‘459” and further in view of Takeo Hideya (JP 2004-248817) “Takeo Hideya”.
5. The image processing device according to claim 1, wherein the object is a breast ("breast M is imaged" [0152] of Fukuda ‘554) , and the linear structure is a mammary gland ("mammary gland" [0152] of Fukuda ‘554).
Fukuda ‘554 does not explicitly teach imaging a spicula.
However Takeo Hideya teaches imaging a spicula. (“Spicula” is a linear abnormality that appears along the mammary gland of the breast.” [0015]).
The linear imaging of Fukuda ‘554 and Chen can be modified by Takeo Hideya to image a spicula.
The motivation for the combination is provided by Takeo Hideya for “an improvement in abnormal shadow candidate detection processing”.
Therefore, the Applicant’s claimed invention would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and the claim is rejected.
6. Claim 6 has been analyzed in view of claims 1, 2, and 5 and is rejected in a similar manner.
Therefore, the Applicant’s claimed invention would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and the claim is rejected.
9. The image processing device according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to derive a variance value of each pixel of the linear structure image as the feature amount ("the “feature amount” in the candidate region, for example, the variance value" [0018]) of Takeo Hideya.
The linear imaging of Fukuda ‘554 and Chen can be modified by Takeo Hideya to utilize a variance to identify a structure.
The motivation for the combination is provided by Takeo Hideya for “an improvement in abnormal shadow candidate detection processing”.
Therefore, the Applicant’s claimed invention would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and the claim is rejected.
10. Claim 10 has been analyzed in view of claims 1, 2, and 9 and is rejected in a similar manner.
Therefore, the Applicant’s claimed invention would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and the claim is rejected.
13. The image processing device according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to select the tomographic image or the high-frequency tomographic image that includes the linear structure having at least a largest feature amount ("the likelihood ratio is a predetermined value. When it is equal to or greater than the threshold, the candidate area is determined as a malignant abnormal shadow. " [0040] of Takeo Hideya.) .
The structure in the image of Fukuda ‘554 and Chen can be modified by Takeo Hideya to select the largest feature amount when the likelihood ratio is greater than threshold.
The motivation for the combination is provided by Takeo Hideya for “an improvement in abnormal shadow candidate detection processing”.
Therefore, the Applicant’s claimed invention would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and the claim is rejected.
14. The image processing device of claim 14 has been analyzed in view of claims 1, 2, and 13. Claim 14 is rejected in a similar manner to claims 1, 2, and 13.
Therefore, the Applicant’s claimed invention would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and the claim is rejected.
15. The image processing device according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to select the tomographic image or the high-frequency tomographic image that includes the linear structure having the feature amount equal to or greater than a predetermined threshold value ("the likelihood ratio is a predetermined value. When it is equal to or greater than the threshold, the candidate area is determined as a malignant abnormal shadow." [0040] of Takeo Hideya.) .
The structure in the image of Fukuda ‘554 and Chen can be modified by Takeo Hideya to select the largest feature amount when the likelihood ratio is greater than threshold.
The motivation for the combination is provided by Takeo Hideya for “an improvement in abnormal shadow candidate detection processing”.
Therefore, the Applicant’s claimed invention would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and the claim is rejected.
16. The image processing device of claim 16 has been analyzed in view of claims 1, 2, and 15. Claim 16 is rejected in a similar manner to claims 1, 2, and 15.
Therefore, the Applicant’s claimed invention would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and the claim is rejected.
Relevant Prior Art
Arai (US 2018/0185000A1)
Abstract
A control unit sets an angle of incidence of radiation, incident on a detection surface of a radiation detector with respect to the detection surface, to a plurality of angles different from each other including an angle (0 degrees) in a normal direction of the detection surface, and acquires at least one of a plurality of projection images captured by the radiation detector in accordance with the angle of incidence or reconstructed images reconstructed using the projection images. In addition, the control unit generates a first synthetic mammogram image on the basis of the one image. In addition, the control unit 40 generates a second synthetic mammogram image by synthesizing a high-frequency image having a high-frequency component higher than a predetermined frequency of the first synthetic mammogram image and a low-frequency image having a low-frequency component of equal to or lower than a predetermined frequency of a zero-degree projection image.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TED W BARNES whose telephone number is (571) 270-1785. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 8:00-5:00.
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, Benny Tieu can be reached at 571-272-7490. 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.
/TED W. BARNES/ Ph.D. Electrical Engineering
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2682
/TED W BARNES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2682