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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 02/02/2026 has been entered.
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
The Amendment filed 02/02/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-13 remain pending in the application. The 35 U.S.C. 112(a) rejection has been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 8-9, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 101 abstract idea rejection for claims 1-12, have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments, see pages 9-13, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections for claims 1-12, have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
With respect to the 35 U.S.C. 101 abstract idea rejection, on pages 8-9, the Applicant asserts that the independent claims as amended are not directed towards an abstract idea or mental process. The Applicant asserts that the claims, as written and amended, cannot be performed as a mental process. The Applicant further notes that the amended claims include elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. The Applicant presents a list of practical, real-world benefits such as the elimination of the need for manual cropping or image selection, the automatic generation of a representative key image that corresponds to semantic content of the report, the reduction of the burden on a radiologist, and the improvement of relevance and accuracy of images attached to interpretation reports.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. It appears the applicant is restating what is in the claim language without specifically identifying what elements and how each limitation is significantly more. The Applicant has not provided any evidence from the Specification nor shown how the claims would enable these listed benefits. Nevertheless, all of the limitations as noted by the Applicant, the Examiner has considered as part of the abstract idea as mental activities. The Applicant has not provided any reasoning or evidence as to why the noted limitations are not mental activities. Each limitation, as written, can be performed by a human with the application of general purpose computing elements. The Examiner also notes in the rejection noted below that the claims only recite a few additional limitations of “at least one processor” and “at least one memory that stores a command for the at least one processor to execute”. These elements, as stated below, are general purpose computing elements. Therefore, the additional limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Hence, the Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. With respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claims 1-12 under Sohma (US Patent No. 10,628,476), in view of Kubo et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0069084), hereinafter referred to as Kubo, the Applicant asserts that Kubo does not disclose or suggest attaching an extracted region-of-interest (ROI) image to the interpretation report. The Applicant also asserts that it would not have been obvious to one who is skilled in the art to have combined the teachings of Sohma and Kubo to arrive at the claimed invention.
In response to Applicant’s argument that Kubo does not disclose or suggest attaching an extracted region-of-interest (ROI) image to the interpretation report, Kubo para [0052] states “In step S204, the region acquisition unit 44 extracts an anatomical region corresponding to the keyword extracted in step S203 from the medical image acquired in step S201, and acquires the region as a region related to the region of interest." Kubo para [0057] states “The display processing unit 46 performs display control to display, on the display unit 36, the medical image with the character string display region including the interpretation text being overlaid.” Kubo para [0108] states "On the server side, a medical image and an interpretation report are acquired based on the selected case number, and the above-described processing is performed to finally determine the display position of the interpretation text (steps S201 to S205). Next, the server transmits the medical image, the interpretation report, the interpretation text, and the display position of the interpretation text to the client side. On the client side, the medical image and the interpretation text are displayed based on the transmitted contents (step S206)." As per these above, Kubo discloses attaching an extracted image conveying an ROI to an interpretation report by the interpretation text being overlaid on the image. This is then transmitted back to the client side, disclosing that the extracted image is, in fact, attached to the interpretation report.
In response to Applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the Examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have combined Sohma’s method with Kubo’s method to have arrived at Claim 1. Hence, the Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
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.
Claim(s) 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Independent claims 1 and 11 recite “accept a series of sentences”, “perform natural-language analysis on the series of sentences”, “decide at least one of necessity of association of a key image based on the image with the series of sentences”, “in response to the association of the key image with the series of sentences being necessary, perform image recognition on the image”, and “attach the key image to the interpretation report”. These limitations, as drafted, are a process that, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the abstract idea of “mental processes” because they cover concepts performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgement, and opinion. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2). That is, other than reciting “at least one processor” and “at least one memory”, nothing in the claimed elements preclude the steps from practically being performed by a person reading an interpretation report written by a medical professional, analyzing the report to create relationships between the words, looking at images corresponding to the report, and deciding to append a key image to the report based on the image coinciding with the report.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements “at least one processor” and “at least one memory” are all recited at a high- level of generality. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claims as a whole are directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A, prong two).
Claims 1 and 11 do not include any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical applications, the additional elements of “at least one processor” and “at least one memory” amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept (Step 2B).
Dependent claims 2-10 and 12-13 are directed to the words in the interpretation report and their relationships among themselves and to the images. That is, nothing in the claimed elements preclude the steps from practically being performed by a person reading an interpretation report written by a medical professional, analyzing the report to create relationships between the words, looking at images corresponding to the report, and deciding to append a key image to the report based on the image coinciding with the report.
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.
Claim(s) 1-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sohma (US Patent No. 10,628,476), in view of Kubo et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0069084), hereinafter referred to as Kubo.
Regarding claim 1, Sohma discloses an information processing apparatus comprising: at least one processor (Sohma Fig. 1, element 101);
and at least one memory that stores a command for the at least one processor to execute (Sohma Fig. 1, elements 102 and 103);
wherein the at least one processor is configured to: accept a series of sentences of an interpretation report including a diagnosis result of an image ("The doctor then writes the image diagnosis result as text data managed by a medical information system," Sohma para [0005] and Sohma Fig. 2, element 202);
perform natural-language analysis on the series of sentences to convert the series of sentences into word strings and specify a relationship of two or more words included in the word strings ("The natural language processing unit 369 is a processing unit which analyzes medical texts. The natural language processing unit 369 has an analyzing unit 370 as a processing unit which analyzes texts. The analyzing unit 370 performs morphological analysis to obtain terms used in texts on a word basis and syntax analysis to analyze the modification relations between words. Morphological analysis is analysis processing for obtaining the original notations of words such as original or basic forms by dividing character strings in texts, classifying the words into part of speech, and removing conjugation, inflection, and the like. This analyzes a text into the form of word strings," Sohma para [0092]);
decide at least one of necessity of association of a key image based on the image with the series of sentences or a candidate for the key image to be associated with the series of sentences on the basis of the relationship of the two or more words (“In step S409, obtained terms are presented in accordance with the presentation sequence (unified form) with unified information classifications, and corresponding supplementary expressions are presented in accordance with the presentation sequence of the attribute classifications, thus performing processing for structured presentation. This decides display contents based on which structured presentation is performed for actual presentation to the user,” Sohma para [0120] and Sohma Fig. 4 elements S408 and S409).
However, Sohma fails to disclose in response to the association of the key image with the series of sentences being necessary, perform image recognition on the image to extract a region of interest corresponding to the two or more words to automatically generate the key image; and
Kubo teaches in response to the association of the key image with the series of sentences being necessary, perform image recognition on the image to extract a region of interest corresponding to the two or more words to automatically generate the key image (Kubo Fig. 2 S204 and "In step S204, the region acquisition unit 44 extracts an anatomical region corresponding to the keyword extracted in step S203 from the medical image acquired in step S201, and acquires the region as a region related to the region of interest," Kubo para [0052]);
and (Kubo Fig. 2 S206 and Kubo paras [0057]-[0059] AND "On the server side, a medical image and an interpretation report are acquired based on the selected case number, and the above-described processing is performed to finally determine the display position of the interpretation text (steps S201 to S205). Next, the server transmits the medical image, the interpretation report, the interpretation text, and the display position of the interpretation text to the client side. On the client side, the medical image and the interpretation text are displayed based on the transmitted contents (step S206)," Kubo para [0108]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modified Sohma’s disclosure of a medical text information processor by including Kubo’s teaching of a medical image and text processor. Determining an anatomical region that corresponds to the keywords or series of sentences allows for any user to easily understand the connection between the two items. This combination, alongside the attachment of the determined regional image, would result in providing the user of the device with an easier to interpret diagnostic report, and therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 2, Sohma, in view of Kubo, discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Sohma further discloses wherein the two or more words include at least two words from among a word representing a region of interest, a word representing facticity, a word representing change information, a word representing a position, a word representing a size, a word representing a characteristic, or a word representing an imaging condition ("The term expression obtaining unit 365 obtains terms appearing in the text, supplementary expressions corresponding to the terms, and perceptual expressions corresponding to the terms and the supplementary expressions based on the morphological analysis and syntax analysis results and dictionary data. The results obtained by this processing are included in FIG. 5B, and are indicated in the “term”, “supplementary expression”, and “perceptual expression” columns. As “term” information, information belonging to categories such as region name, lesion/abnormality name, and disease is obtained with respect to descriptions. As “supplementary expression” information, information belonging to categories such as shape and size and subcategories such as concreteness is obtained with respect to descriptions. As “perceptual expression” information, information corresponding to direct expressions of visual perception, recognition/possibility, and the like such as “considered”, “seen”, and “suspected” and information belonging to categories such as expression of confirmation of existence (presence/absence) including “exists” and “accompanied” are obtained with respect to descriptions and combinations of them," Sohma para [0102]).
Regarding claim 3, Sohma, in view of Kubo, discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Sohma further discloses wherein the two or more words include a word representing a region of interest, and a word representing facticity of the region of interest (As “term” information, information belonging to categories such as region name, lesion/abnormality name, and disease is obtained with respect to descriptions. As “supplementary expression” information, information belonging to categories such as shape and size and subcategories such as concreteness is obtained with respect to descriptions. As “perceptual expression” information, information corresponding to direct expressions of visual perception, recognition/possibility, and the like such as “considered”, “seen”, and “suspected” and information belonging to categories such as expression of confirmation of existence (presence/absence) including “exists” and “accompanied” are obtained with respect to descriptions and combinations of them," Sohma para [0102]).
Sohma does not disclose determine that the association of the key image is necessary in a case where the facticity affirms existence of the region of interest nor determine that the association of the key image is not necessary in a case where the facticity denies the existence of the region of interest.
Kubo teaches determine that the association of the key image is necessary in a case where the facticity affirms existence of the region of interest (“The region acquisition unit 44 serving as related region acquisition unit performs image processing to be described later for the medical image acquired by the medical image acquisition unit 41 based on the keyword acquired by the keyword extraction unit 43, thereby acquiring an anatomical region in the medical image. The region acquisition unit 44 outputs the acquired anatomical region to the display position determination unit 45,” Kubo para [0041]);
and determine that the association of the key image is not necessary in a case where the facticity denies the existence of the region of interest (“The region acquisition unit 44 serving as related region acquisition unit performs image processing to be described later for the medical image acquired by the medical image acquisition unit 41 based on the keyword acquired by the keyword extraction unit 43, thereby acquiring an anatomical region in the medical image. The region acquisition unit 44 outputs the acquired anatomical region to the display position determination unit 45,” Kubo para [0041]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Sohma’s disclosure of a medical text information processor with Kubo’s teaching of a medical image and text processor. Showing the medical key image associated with the region of interest alongside the phrase that recites that region of interest on a single display allows for any user to understand the connection between the two. This combination would result in providing the user of the device with an easier to understand diagnostic report, and therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 4, Sohma, in view of Kubo, discloses all of the limitations of claim 2. Sohma further discloses wherein the word representing the change information includes a word representing change information on at least one of a size or an amount (“In step S1005, information of terms and attribute expressions (supplementary expressions and perceptual expressions) is obtained, which has undergone information classification changes and attribute classification changes/improvements, from revision/improvement records. The classifying structuring unit 363 executes this processing,” Sohma para [0140]).
Regarding claim 5, Sohma, in view of Kubo, discloses all of the limitations of claim 2. However, Sohma does not disclose wherein the at least one processor extracts the candidate for the key image from the image on the basis of the position.
Kubo teaches wherein the at least one processor extracts the candidate for the key image from the image on the basis of the position ("In step S204, the region acquisition unit 44 extracts an anatomical region corresponding to the keyword extracted in step S203 from the medical image acquired in step S201, and acquires the region as a region related to the region of interest," Kubo para [0052]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Sohma’s disclosure of a medical text information processor with Kubo’s teaching of a medical image and text processor. Extracting the key image based upon the positional words found in the given string of sentences would ensure that the text report and the medical image correctly correspond to each other. This would make their relationship easier to absorb to any user of the diagnostic device. Therefore, this combination would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 6, Sohma, in view of Kubo, discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Sohma further discloses wherein the at least one processor is configured to: accept two or more types of images of which the imaging conditions are different (“The medical image interpreter 202 is a radiologist who interprets CT images, MRI images, and the like,” Sohma para [0049].) This shows that the images that are then submitted to the interpretation processing unit (shown in Fig. 2) can be of multiple types.
However, Sohma does not disclose extract the candidate for the key image from the two or more types of images.
Kubo teaches extract the candidate for the key image from the two or more types of images (“In step S204, the region acquisition unit 44 extracts an anatomical region corresponding to the keyword extracted in step S203 from the medical image acquired in step S201, and acquires the region as a region related to the region of interest,” Kubo para [0052]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Sohma’s disclosure of a medical text information processor with Kubo’s teaching of a medical image and text processor. Being able to accept multiple different types of images as inputs and extracting the key image from these creates a more versatile device that can then be used with a multitude of medical imaging technologies. Therefore, this would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 7, Sohma, in view of Kubo, discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Sohma further discloses wherein the image is a medical image ("In this embodiment, on the premise of such an environment, a doctor performs image diagnosis by using medical images such as CT and MRI images, and summarizes and writes the diagnosis result as an interpretation report," Sohma para [0047];
the two or more words include a word representing a disease name (“As “term” information, information belonging to categories such as region name, lesion/abnormality name, and disease is obtained with respect to descriptions,” Sohma para [0102]).
However, Sohma does not disclose and the at least one processor extracts the candidate for the key image on the basis of the disease name.
Kubo teaches and the at least one processor extracts the candidate for the key image on the basis of the disease name (“For example, when an interpretation text is created for a right lung disease, not only the region occupied by the right lung field but also other organs (for example, the left lung field and the bronchus) that can be related to the disease may be taken into consideration when determining the display position of the interpretation text,” Kubo para [0060]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Sohma’s disclosure of a medical text information processor with Kubo’s teaching of a medical image and text processor. Allowing for the key image to be chosen based upon the disease name identified in the given series of sentences would ensure that the image or images included encapsulated everything that could be affected by said disease. Many diseases affect multiple parts of the body, so including this limitation allows for all of the possible related images to be shown. Therefore, this would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 8, Sohma, in view of Kubo, discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Sohma further discloses wherein the two or more words include a word representing a region of interest, and a word representing a malignancy grade of the region of interest (“As “supplementary expression” information, information belonging to categories such as shape and size and subcategories such as concreteness is obtained with respect to descriptions. As “perceptual expression” information, information corresponding to direct expressions of visual perception, recognition/possibility, and the like such as “considered”, “seen”, and “suspected” and information belonging to categories such as expression of confirmation of existence (presence/absence) including “exists” and “accompanied” are obtained with respect to descriptions and combinations of them," Sohma para [0102]).
However, Sohma does not disclose and the at least one processor is configured to: determine that the association of the key image is necessary in a case where the malignancy grade affirms malignancy of the region of interest; and determine that the association of the key image is not necessary in a case where the malignancy grade denies the malignancy of the region of interest.
Kubo teaches and the at least one processor is configured to: determine that the association of the key image is necessary in a case where the malignancy grade affirms malignancy of the region of interest (“In step S203, the keyword extraction unit 43 extracts a keyword set in advance from the interpretation text read out in step S202 by keyword matching,” Kubo para [0051] and “In step S204, the region acquisition unit 44 extracts an anatomical region corresponding to the keyword extracted in step S203 from the medical image acquired in step S201, and acquires the region as a region related to the region of interest,” Kubo para [0052];
and determine that the association of the key image is not necessary in a case where the malignancy grade denies the malignancy of the region of interest (“In step S203, the keyword extraction unit 43 extracts a keyword set in advance from the interpretation text read out in step S202 by keyword matching,” Kubo para [0051] and “In step S204, the region acquisition unit 44 extracts an anatomical region corresponding to the keyword extracted in step S203 from the medical image acquired in step S201, and acquires the region as a region related to the region of interest,” Kubo para [0052].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Sohma’s disclosure of a medical text information processor with Kubo’s teaching of a medical image and text processor. Allowing for the key image to be chosen and potentially included based upon the malignancy grade identified in the given series of sentences would ensure that the image or images included encapsulated everything affected by the condition that results in the malignancy grade. If the malignancy grade is higher, it could potentially be present in a larger area or in different areas of the body, so including this limitation allows for all of the possible related images to be shown. Therefore, this would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 9, Sohma, in view of Kubo, discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. However, Sohma does not disclose wherein the at least one processor is configured to: display the candidate for the key image on a display; accept an operation by a user; and associate the candidate of the key image with the series of sentences, as the key image according to the operation.
Kubo teaches wherein the at least one processor is configured to: display the candidate for the key image on a display (“The display processing unit 46 performs display control to display, on the display unit 36, the medical image,” Kubo para [0057]);
accept an operation by a user (“The character string display region of the interpretation text may be moved in accordance with an operation input of the user,” Kubo para [0065]);
and associate the candidate of the key image with the series of sentences, as the key image according to the operation (“In step S206, the display processing unit 46 overlays the character string display region including some or all of the character strings of the interpretation text acquired in step S202 at the display position determined in step S205 on the medical image acquired in step S201,” Kubo para [0057]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Sohma’s disclosure of a medical text information processor with Kubo’s teaching of a medical image and text processor. Showing the medical key image associated with the given series of sentences alongside the aforementioned given series of sentences on a display allows for any user to understand the connection between the two. Allowing for accepting an operation from a user in order to affect the report also lets the interaction between user and the full output (key image and given series of sentences) be more user-friendly. This combination would result in providing the user of the device with an easier to understand diagnostic report, and therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 10, Sohma, in view of Kubo, discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. However, Sohma does not disclose wherein the image is a three-dimensional image, and the at least one processor is configured to: display, as the candidate for the key image, a slice image at any slice position of the three-dimensional image on a display; accept a change of the slice position of the candidate for the key image by a user; and associate the slice image at the changed slice position with the series of sentences, as the key image.
Kubo teaches wherein the image is a three-dimensional image (Kubo Fig. 8, Fig. 10A, and Fig. 10B all show three-dimensional images and “In this embodiment, the display processing unit 46 displays the interpretation text associated with the region of interest together with each slice image existing within a predetermined distance from the region of interest in a direction perpendicular to the cross section of the slice image. For this reason, even if a disease is distributed three-dimensionally, the user can easily grasp the correspondence between the interpretation text and the region with the disease,” Kubo para [0076];
and the at least one processor is configured to: display, as the candidate for the key image, a slice image at any slice position of the three-dimensional image on a display (“In this embodiment, the display processing unit 46 displays the interpretation text associated with the region of interest together with each slice image existing within a predetermined distance from the region of interest in a direction perpendicular to the cross section of the slice image. For this reason, even if a disease is distributed three-dimensionally, the user can easily grasp the correspondence between the interpretation text and the region with the disease,” Kubo para [0076];
accept a change of the slice position of the candidate for the key image by a user (“In the above-described embodiment, a position indicating specific coordinates in the medical image is recorded and used as the position-of-interest information of the interpretation report. However, the position-of-interest information is not limited to this. For example, the user may set the position of interest as a range (to be referred to as a range of interest hereinafter). More specifically, an ROI (Region Of Interest) or VOI (Volume Of Interest) is set,” Kubo para [0077];
and associate the slice image at the changed slice position with the series of sentences, as the key image (“An example in which an ROI is set will be described with reference to FIGS. 9A, 9B, and 9C. The medical image 410 and the broken lines 411 in FIGS. 9A, 9B, and 9C are the same as those shown in FIG. 4. A range of interest corresponding to the interpretation text of the medical image is set as an ROI 415 by the user. The character string display region display position determination method in this case will be described.),” Kubo para [0078].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Sohma’s disclosure of a medical text information processor with Kubo’s teaching of a medical image and text processor. Allowing for a three-dimensional image to be taken as an input and have individual two-dimensional slices of the original image be displayed as a key image alongside the corresponding given series of sentences would allow for better representation of the diagnosis through the displayed images, as slices of the three-dimensional image could be chosen along any axis. This freedom of choosing image slices, as well as allowing for a user to change the slice position themselves, increases the user-friendliness of the device as well as resulting in a better understood diagnostic report.
Regarding claim 11, method claim 11 and system claim 1 are related as system and method of using same, with each claimed element’s function corresponding to the system step. Accordingly, claim 11 is similarly rejected under the same rationale as applied above with respect to system claim.
Regarding claim 12, Sohma, in view of Kubo, discloses a non-transitory, computer-readable tangible recording medium which records thereon a program for causing, when read by a computer, the computer to execute the information processing method according to claim 11 (“Embodiment(s) of the present invention can also be realized by a computer of a system or apparatus that reads out and executes computer executable instructions (e.g., one or more programs) recorded on a storage medium (which may also be referred to more fully as a ‘non-transitory computer-readable storage medium’) to perform the functions of one or more of the above-described embodiment(s) and/or that includes one or more circuits (e.g., application specific integrated circuit(ASIC)) for performing the functions of one or more of the above-described embodiment(s), and by a method performed by the computer of the system or apparatus by, for example, reading out and executing the computer executable instructions from the storage medium to perform the functions of one or more of the above-described embodiment(s) and/or controlling the one or more circuits to perform the functions of one or more of the above-described embodiment(s)," Sohma para [0159]).
Regarding claim 13, Sohma, in view of Kubo, discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Sohma further discloses wherein the image is a medical image ("In this embodiment, on the premise of such an environment, a doctor performs image diagnosis by using medical images such as CT and MRI images, and summarizes and writes the diagnosis result as an interpretation report," Sohma para [0047];
the two or more words include a word representing an imaging condition and a word representing a characteristic indicating a lesion ("As “term” information, information belonging to categories such as region name, lesion/abnormality name, and disease is obtained with respect to descriptions. As “supplementary expression” information, information belonging to categories such as shape and size and subcategories such as concreteness is obtained with respect to descriptions. As “perceptual expression” information, information corresponding to direct expressions of visual perception, recognition/possibility, and the like such as “considered”, “seen”, and “suspected” and information belonging to categories such as expression of confirmation of existence (presence/absence) including “exists” and “accompanied” are obtained with respect to descriptions and combinations of them," Sohma para [0102]).
However, Sohma does not disclose and the at least one processor extracts the candidate for the key image on the basis of the imaging condition and the characteristic.
Kubo teaches and the at least one processor extracts the candidate for the key image on the basis of the imaging condition and the characteristic (“For example, when an interpretation text is created for a right lung disease, not only the region occupied by the right lung field but also other organs (for example, the left lung field and the bronchus) that can be related to the disease may be taken into consideration when determining the display position of the interpretation text,” Kubo para [0060]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Sohma’s disclosure of a medical text information processor with Kubo’s teaching of a medical image and text processor. Allowing for the key image to be chosen based upon the imaging condition and a characteristic indicating a lesion identified in the given series of sentences would ensure that the image or images included encapsulated everything that could be affected by said lesion. Lesions can affect multiple parts of the body, so including this limitation allows for all of the possible related images to be shown. Therefore, this would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US Patent No. 8,903,147
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM MICHAEL WEAVER whose telephone number is (571)272-7062. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8AM-5PM 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, Richemond Dorvil can be reached at (571) 272-7602. 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.
/ADAM MICHAEL WEAVER/Examiner, Art Unit 2658
/RICHEMOND DORVIL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2658