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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/27/2026 was filed and is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s arguments and claim amendments, see P. 2, filed 12/22/2025, with respect to drawings have been fully considered and are persuasive. The Drawing Objection of 09/23/2025 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments and claim amendments, see P. 2 – P. 3, filed 12/22/2025, with respect to claims 1-11 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of 09/23/2025 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments and claim amendments, see P. 3, filed 12/22/2025, with respect to claims 1-11 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection of 09/23/2025 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments and claim amendments, see P. 4 – P. 6, filed 12/22/2025, with respect to claims 1 and 10-11 have been fully considered but are not found convincing. The 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection of 09/23/2025 has NOT been withdrawn.
Applicant’s addition of claim 12 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection in view MABOTUWANA et al. (US 2018/0025132 A1)
Regarding the amendments to claims 1 and 10-11, examiner acknowledges that the amendment included elements from previously presented claim 6 mainly. In addition, examiner appreciates the change of “second” to “past” for clearer temporal definition of the documents. However, the amendments changed the scope of the claim and upon further consideration and looking through Itai (US 9,483,823 B2) examiner believes that Itai still teaches the amended independent claims.
Examiner acknowledges that Itai does not look for absences of measurement. However the current only states determining if the measurements are the same “type”. Under BRI, type can mean a lot of different measurements. This includes the situation displayed between Figs. 2-4 of Itai where the diameter is measured on different axis (type) for different images of lesion. A negative determination, without specifying more, is merely a conditional statement that can be satisfied through any process. The comparison to an evaluation value of Itai, which then lead to a binary next options, satisfies the negative determination (despite the flowchart is going to YES in Fig. 5 when different axis is observed). And, since the remeasurement is done on the first image of Itai, which is the past image, the claim limitation is still satisfied.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 7, and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Itai (US 9,483,823 B2, hereinafter Itai).
Regarding Claim 1, 10, and 11, Itai discloses
Claim 1: An information processing apparatus comprising at least one processor, wherein the at least one processor is configured to:
Claim 10: An information processing method comprising:
Claim 11: A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing an information processing program for causing a computer to execute a process comprising:
acquire a first measurement value measured for a first region of interest included in a first image obtained by imaging a subject at a first point in time, wherein the first measurement value is determined based on pixel values of the first region of interest (Fig. 5 step S10, S12; Col. 4 Lns. 1-3: “FIG. 2 is a diagram showing an example of a first medical image photographed previously and a second medical image photographed most recently”, Col. 5 Lns. 58-64: “Specifically, the measurement parameter acquisition unit 12 of this embodiment acquires the coordinates of two end points of the diameter of the lesion area of the first medical image as the first measurement parameter, and acquires the coordinates of the two end points of the diameter of the lesion area of the second medical image as the second measurement parameter.”);
acquire a past document describing diagnosis content based on a second image obtained by imaging the subject at a second point in time before the first point in time (Fig. 5 step S10, S12; Col. 4 Lns. 1-3: “FIG. 2 is a diagram showing an example of a first medical image photographed previously and a second medical image photographed most recently”, Col. 5 Lns. 10-14: “The medical image acquisition unit 10 of this embodiment acquires a medical image photographed previously as the first medical image and acquires a medical image photo graphed most recently as the second medical image.”);
determine whether or not the second document includes a second measurement value of the same type as the first measurement value, which is measured for a second region of interest included in the second image, the second region of interest being the same as the first region of interest (Figs. 2-5 S18; Co. 7 Lns. 32-60: “The evaluation value V is compared with the threshold value Vmin, and when the evaluation value Vis greater than the threshold value Vmin, that is, when the end point Pa1 and the end point Pa2 as the first measurement parameter exist near the line passing through the end point Pb1 and the end point Pb2 as the second measurement parameter, it is determined that the change between the first measurement parameter and the second measurement parameter is smaller than the preset amount of change. When the determination unit 14 determines that the change between the first measurement parameter and the second measurement parameter is smaller than the preset amount of change, it is determined that the diameters of the lesion area respectively measured using the first measurement parameter and the second measurement parameter are appropriate for confirming the growth or reduction effect of the lesion area, and the diameters are output to the display control unit 16 and are displayed on the display 3 by the display control unit 16. When the determination unit 14 determines that the change between the first measurement parameter and the second measurement parameter is equal to or greater than the preset amount of change, it is determines that the diameters of the lesion area respectively measured using the first measurement parameter and the second measurement parameter are inappropriate for confirming the growth or reduction effect of the lesion area, and the determination result is output to the measurement parameter resetting unit 15”); and
in a case where the determination is a negative determination, extract the second region of interest from the second image and measure the second measurement value based on pixel values of the second region of interest (Col. 5 Lns. 58-64: “Specifically, the measurement parameter acquisition unit 12 of this embodiment acquires the coordinates of two end points of the diameter of the lesion area of the first medical image as the first measurement parameter, and acquires the coordinates of the two end points of the diameter of the lesion area of the second medical image as the second measurement parameter.”, Col. 7 Ln. 61-Col. 8 Ln. 11: “The measurement parameter resetting unit 15 acquires a third measurement parameter by resetting the first measurement parameter (endpoints Pa1, Pa2) set in the first medical image using the second measurement parameter (end points Pb1, Pb2) according to the input determination result. Specifically, as shown in FIG. 4, the measurement parameter resetting unit 15 of the embodiment first automatically extracts the lesion area included in the first medical image. As an extraction method of the lesion area, known methods can be used. Next, the end point Pb1 and the end point Pb2 of the diameter of the lesion area set in the second medical image are plotted on the first medical image, and the coordinates of a point on the contour of the lesion area on the first medical image among points on a line passing through the end point Pb1 and the end point Pb2 is acquired as the third measurement parameter. That is, the coordinates of a point PA1 and a point PA2 shown in FIG. 4 are acquired as the third measurement parameter”; Col. 9 Lns. 6-15: “When the determination unit 14 determines that the change between the first measurement parameter and the second measurement parameter is equal to or greater than the preset amount of change (S18, YES), the determination result is output to the measurement parameter resetting unit 15, and the measurement parameter resetting unit 15 acquires the third measurement parameter in the above described manner according to the input determination result (S20)”).
Regarding Claim 7, dependent upon claim 1, Itai teaches all of the elements regarding claim 1.
Itai further discloses
the at least one processor is configured to cause a display to display the second measurement value acquired in the case where the determination is a negative determination in a display form different from the case where the second measurement value is included in the past document (Col. 8 Ln. 65-Col. 9 Ln. 5: “a measurement result of measuring the diameter of the lesion area of the first medical image using the first measurement parameter set in S12 and a measurement result of measuring the diameter of the lesion area of the second medical image using the second measurement parameter are output to the display control unit 16, and the measurement results are displayed on the display 3 (S24)”; Col. 9 Lns. 22-27: “The display control unit 16 causes the measurement result measured using third measurement parameter to be dis played for the lesion area of the first medical image and the measurement result measured using the second measurement parameter to be displayed for the lesion area of the second medical image (S24)”).
Regarding Claim 9, dependent upon claim 1, Itai teaches all of the elements regarding claim 1.
Itai further discloses
the first measurement value and the second measurement value are at least one of a size or a signal value of the first region of interest and the second region of interest, respectively (Col. 6 Lns 4-8: “Hereinafter, the first measurement parameter and the second measurement parameter will be specifically described referring to FIG. 2. FIG. 2 shows an example of a first medical image and a second medical image including the same lesion area of different sizes”).
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 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Itai (US 9,483,823 B2, hereinafter Itai) in view of Betke et al. (US 7,206,462 B1, hereinafter Betke).
Regarding claim 4, dependent upon claim 1, Itai teaches all of the elements regarding claim 1.
Itai further discloses
measure the second measurement value based on the second image Col. 7 Ln. 61-Col. 8 Ln. 11: “The measurement parameter resetting unit 15 acquires a third measurement parameter by resetting the first measurement parameter (endpoints Pa1, Pa2) set in the first medical image using the second measurement parameter (end points Pb1, Pb2) according to the input determination result. Specifically, as shown in FIG. 4, the measurement parameter resetting unit 15 of the embodiment first automatically extracts the lesion area included in the first medical image. As an extraction method of the lesion area, known methods can be used. Next, the end point Pb1 and the end point Pb2 of the diameter of the lesion area set in the second medical image are plotted on the first medical image, and the coordinates of a point on the contour of the lesion area on the first medical image among points on a line passing through the end point Pb1 and the end point Pb2 is acquired as the third measurement parameter. That is, the coordinates of a point PA1 and a point PA2 shown in FIG. 4 are acquired as the third measurement parameter”; Col. 9 Lns. 6-15: “When the determination unit 14 determines that the change between the first measurement parameter and the second measurement parameter is equal to or greater than the preset amount of change (S18, YES), the determination result is output to the measurement parameter resetting unit 15, and the measurement parameter resetting unit 15 acquires the third measurement parameter in the above described manner according to the input determination result (S20)”).
However, Itai does not disclose
in a case where the determination is a negative determination: acquire, in a case where the second measurement value that has been measured based on the second image is present, the measured second measurement value; and …in a case where the measured second measurement value is not present.
Betke teaches
in a case where the determination is a negative determination: acquire… the measured second measurement value (Fig. 18; Col. 13 Lns. 29-39: “It should be understood that the number of thresholds which may be applied to the CT image data (e.g. in steps 34-38) depends upon a variety of factors including but not limited to the required accuracy of the system and the time available for computation. The more accurate the required results, the more thresholds are needed and the longer the processing takes. There is thus a trade-off between accuracy and processing speed that must be considered. In this embodiment, a sequence of threshold values starting at 300 and involving every tenth level, i.e., 310, 320, 330,...until 800, has been shown to yield accurate results”; Col. 14 Lns. 11-17: “Decision block 50 implements a loop in which a determination is made as to whether the results of the processing which took place in steps 46 and 48 are acceptable. As mentioned in accordance with FIG. 3, one important consideration to that determines whether the results are sufficient is whether the lung border is well defined and whether the image includes detectable features”, Col. 24 Lns. 2-5: “In step 328, the information provided from steps 320-326 are used to determine thresholds for decision rules. The decision rules generated in step 328 are then used to classify a structure as shown in step 330”).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Itai with workflow of determining values prior to the conditional statements of Betke to effectively increase the efficiency when comparing changes of a patient’s CT scans across different time points.
Itai in view of Beke are silent on the conditional statement of
…in a case where the second measurement value that has been measured based on the second image is present…in a case where the measured second measurement value is not present.
However, Official notice is taken to note that a conditional statement based on missing data is known and expected within the image processing arts. It would have been obvious to the ordinarily-skilled artisan at the time the invention was filed to selectively perform the functions of Itai in view of Beke, to achieve the known and expected uses and benefits of using a conditional statement based on missing data to reduce unnecessary processing of images.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Itai (US 9,483,823 B2, hereinafter Itai) in view of Betke et al. (US 7,206,462 B1, hereinafter Betke) as applied above and Nadadur et al. (US 2004/0267122 A1, hereinafter Nadadur).
Regarding claim 5, dependent upon claim 4, Itai in view of Betke teaches all of the elements regarding claim 4 as discussed above.
However, Itai in view of Betke does not teach
to cause a display to display the second measurement value in different display forms in a case where the measured second measurement value is acquired and a case where the second measurement value is measured based on the second image.
Nadadur teaches
to cause a display to display the second measurement value in different display forms in a case where the measured second measurement value is acquired and a case where the second measurement value is measured based on the second image (Fig. 1; Fig. 2 510-520; The first and second image can have one being displayed in the first area at the start and the other being displayed at the second area. It would be reasonable to have the multiple thresholds of Betke to be displayed in plurality form as all of them are predetermined measurement. Since there is not specification how the different display form is achieved, any kind of differences can be understood as different display form).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Itai in view of Betke with displaying images in different manners on the screen of Nadadur to effectively improve the medical image user interface.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Itai (US 9,483,823 B2, hereinafter Itai) in view of Nadadur et al. (US 2004/0267122 A1, hereinafter Nadadur) and Du et al. (Dynamic Observation of Lung Nodules on Chest CT Before Diagnosis of Early Lung Cancer, hereinafter Du).
Regarding claim 8, dependent upon claim 1, Itai teaches all of the elements regarding claim 1.
However Itai does not disclose
create a plot diagram of the acquired first measurement value and second measurement value; and
cause a display to display the plot diagram.
Nadadur teaches
cause a display to display the plot diagram (Fig. 1; Fig. 530).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Itai in view of Betke with displaying plot on the screen of Nadadur to effectively improve the medical image user interface.
However Itai in view of Nadadur does not teach
create a plot diagram of the acquired first measurement value and second measurement value.
Du teaches
create a plot diagram of the acquired first measurement value and second measurement value (Fig. 3-6).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Itai in view of Nadadur with creating plot based on size of lung nodules of Du to effectively increase the possibility of earlier recognition and diagnosis of lung cancer.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Itai (US 9,483,823 B2, hereinafter Itai) in view of MABOTUWANA et al. (US 2018/0025132 A1, hereinafter Mabotuwana).
Regarding claim 12, dependent upon claim 1, Itai teaches all of the elements regarding claim 1.
However, Itai does not explicitly discloses
wherein the processor determines whether or not words related to the second measurement value is included in the past document so as to determine whether or not the past document includes the second measurement value of the same type as the first measurement value.
Mabotuwana teaches
wherein the processor determines whether or not words related to the second measurement value is included in the past document so as to determine whether or not the past document includes the second measurement value of the same type as the first measurement value (Para [0027]: “In response to a request to find the missing measurements, such as a signal input from the input device 26 a document parser engine 30 parses reports corresponding to each missing period of one or more tracked lesions. For example, in response to a command received from the input device 26, the document parser engine 30 selects two reports: a January 1 report and a May 12 report corresponding to missing periods of two lesions, one lesion missing values from January 1 and May 12, and a second lesion missing values from the May 12 report. The document parser engine 39 parses the two reports.”, Para [0027]: “A measurement engine 34 recognizes measurements in the parsed text and associated with the mapped phrases and normalizes the recognized measurements. The measurements are recognized based on rules and/or pattern matching searching the parsed sentences as character strings for numeric values. The measurement engine 34 normalizes the measurements to a standard unit of measure. For example, measurements of the lesions in centimeters (cm) or inches (in) are converted to millimeters (mm), or other unit of measure selected for the tracked characteristics.”).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Itai with determining if second measurement is present based on text of past diagnosis of Mabotuwana to effectively reduce the time needed for sorting reports.
Relevant Prior Art Directed to State of Art
IWASAKI (US 2012/0250961 A1, hereinafter Iwasaki) is prior art not applied in the rejection(s) above. Iwasaki discloses a medical report generation apparatus includes a key image selection unit that selects, as a key image representing a diagnostic characteristic feature, a slice image generated based on three-dimensional medical image data obtained by imaging a Subject, a selected position input unit that inputs a selected position in the key image, a Supplementary image determination unit that determines, based on the key image and the selected position, a slice image that includes the selected position and represents a cross section different from a cross section represented by the key image, as a Supplementary image, in the three-dimensional medical image data, and a medical report generation unit that generates a medical report including the key image and information for identifying the Supplementary image.
WATANABE (US 2019/0374088 A1, hereinafter Watanabe) is prior art not applied in the rejection(s) above. Watanabe discloses an endoscope system capable of preventing a detection target from being overlooked in the case of using an automatic detection function for the detection target, and an operation method for the endoscope system.
NAKAMURA et al. (US 2019/0279751 A1, hereinafter Nakamura) is prior art not applied in the rejection(s) above. Nakamura discloses a systems comprising An input receiving unit receives an input of a keyword indicating the findings based on a displayed medical image. An analysis result acquisition unit acquires an analysis result of the medical image. A document creation unit creates a medical document relevant to the medical image based on the keyword and the analysis result.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA CHEN whose telephone number is (703)756-5394. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th: 9:30 am - 4:30pm ET F: 9:30 am - 2:30pm ET.
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, STEPHEN R KOZIOL can be reached at (408)918-7630. 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.
/J. C./ Examiner, Art Unit 2665
/Stephen R Koziol/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2665