DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 16-20 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 06/18/2025.
Applicant's election with traverse of claims 1-15 in the reply filed on 06/18/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the grounds that all of the claims in this application can be examined at the same time without serious burden. This is not found persuasive because the inventions require separate fields of search (different search queries) along with a unique text search, as discussed in the restriction requirement.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) are:
An image acquisition unit- claim 1 and claims that depend therefrom
A first classification data output unit- claim 1 and claims that depend therefrom
A inner cavity region extraction unit- claim 1 and claims that depend therefrom
A first mode output unit- claim 2
A second mode output unit- claim 3
A second classification data acquisition unit- claim 9
A synthesis classification data output unit- claim 9
A three-dimensional output unit- claims 11 and 12
A display region selection unit- claim 12
Because this/these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation:
An image acquisition unit- paragraphs [0271] and [0387] of the specification discloses that the corresponding structure is the control unit, which includes a computer/information processing device.
A first classification data output unit- paragraph [0212] discloses that the corresponding structure is the output layer of the first classification trained model.
An inner cavity region extraction unit- paragraphs [0234] and [0387] of the specification discloses that the corresponding structure is the control unit, which includes a computer/information processing device.
A first mode output unit- paragraphs [0105] and [0387] of the specification discloses that the corresponding structure is the control unit, which includes a computer/information processing device.
A second mode output unit- paragraphs [0105] and [0387] of the specification discloses that the corresponding structure is the control unit, which includes a computer/information processing device.
A second classification data acquisition unit- paragraphs [0282] and [0387] of the specification discloses that the corresponding structure is the control unit, which includes a computer/information processing device.
A synthesis classification data output unit- paragraphs [0282] and [0387] of the specification discloses that the corresponding structure is the control unit, which includes a computer/information processing device.
A three-dimensional output unit- paragraphs [0357] of the specification discloses that the corresponding structure is the control unit, which includes a computer/information processing device.
A display region selection unit- paragraphs [0441] and [0442] of the specification discloses that the corresponding structure is the control unit and a display screen.
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner's interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 14 recites “inputting the acquired catheter image to a first classification trained model that is generated using first training data that indicates a non-biological tissue region at least including a first inner cavity region that is inside of the first cavity and a second inner cavity region that is inside of a second cavity in which the image acquisition catheter is not inserted and a biological tissue region, and outputs first classification data in which the non-biological tissue region and the biological tissue region are classified as different regions when the catheter image is input, and outputting the first classification data”. In other words, the claim recites using an input in a model, and outputting data. The claims do not recite what is being done to the input.
Similarly, the specification does not seem to clarify what is occurring with the input. Paragraphs [0232]-[0237] and Fig. 20 disclose the classification, but does not provide an explanation. The specification merely recite that the non-biological tissue region that extracted is the first inner cavity region, but does not clarify how the determination or classification is done. Clarification is needed.
Claim 15 is rejected for the same reasons as stated for claim 14.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “non-biological tissue region” in line 6, and also recites “a first cavity” in line 3. This claim is indefinite because it is unclear how “a first cavity” contains “non-biological tissue”, if the activity is inside of the body, i.e. “biological”. In other words, “non-biological tissue” contradicts “cavity” as a cavity is inherently biological. Clarification is needed. For examination purposes, this limitation will be interpreted as distinguishing between organ boundaries and other areas of the image, such areas containing blood.
Claim 1 further recites “outputs first classification data in which a non-biological tissue region including… a second inner cavity region that is inside a second cavity where the image acquisition catheter is not inserted” in lines 6-9. In other words, the input is a catheter in the first cavity. It would be unclear to one with ordinary skill in the art what classification of a second region can be performed if the catheter is not there and did not capture an image of it. Clarification is needed. For examination purposes, this claim limitation will be interpreted as acquiring images in multiple cavities.
Claim 2 recites “change the first classification data into a mode in which the first inner cavity region, the second inner cavity region, and the biological tissue region can be distinguished from one another”. This claim is indefinite as claim 1 recites “outputs first classification data in which a non-biological tissue region including…and a biological tissue region are classified as different regions”, in other words the data is classified into three categories, and it is unclear what is being done in the data such that the data is classified into new, different categories after initial classification in claim 1. Clarification is needed. For examination purposes, this claim limitation will be interpreted categorizing different tissue types within the image.
Claim 3 recites “extract a non-inner cavity region that is neither the first inner cavity region nor the second inner cavity region from the non-biological tissue region in the first classification data” in lines 4-6. Claim 1 establishes the classification of the data into non-biological tissue and within the two cavities. It is unclear why or how the classification was not completely performed such that there is another cavity region. Clarification is needed. For examination purposes, this claim limitation will be interpreted categorizing different tissue types within the image.
Claim 3 further recites “change the first classification data into a mode in which the first inner cavity region, the second inner cavity region, the non-inner cavity region, and the biological tissue region can be distinguished from one another” in lines 7-9. Claim 1 establishes the classification of the data into non-biological tissue and within the two cavities. It is unclear why or how the classification was not completely performed such that there is another cavity region. Clarification is needed. For examination purposes, this claim limitation will be interpreted categorizing different tissue types within the image.
Claim 7 recites “the first classification trained model includes a memory portion”. A model is software. It would be unclear to one with ordinary skill in the art in what instance a software can comprise hardware. Examiner suggests amending claim to recite the reverse, which is a memory holds models.
Claims 4-6, and 8-11 are rejected to dependency on claim 1.
Claim 12 recites : “an image acquisition catheter” in line 3. This claim element is indefinite. It would be unclear to one with ordinary skill in the art if the “image acquisition catheter” is the same as the “image acquisition catheter” established in claim 1 or is a separate and distinct feature.
Claim 13 recites : “an image acquisition catheter” in line 3. This claim element is indefinite. It would be unclear to one with ordinary skill in the art if the “image acquisition catheter” is the same as the “image acquisition catheter” established in claim 1 or is a separate and distinct feature.
Claim 14 recites “non-biological tissue region” in line 6, and also recites “a first cavity” in line 4. This claim is indefinite because it is unclear how “a first cavity” contains “non-biological tissue”, if the activity is inside of the body, i.e. “biological”. In other words, “non-biological tissue” contradicts “cavity” as a cavity is inherently biological. Clarification is needed. For examination purposes, this limitation will be interpreted as distinguishing between organ boundaries and other areas of the image, such areas containing blood.
Claims 15 is rejected to dependency on claim 1.
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.
Claims 1--15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101
Regarding claim 1,
Step 1: Statutory category: Yes- A information processing device is disclosed, and is therefore a device.
Step 2: Step 2A, Prong 1, Judicial Exception: Yes- This claim recites the limitation “upon receiving input of the catheter image, outputs first classification data in which a non-biological tissue region including a first inner cavity region that is inside the first cavity and a second inner cavity region that is inside a second cavity where the image acquisition catheter is not inserted, and a biological tissue region are classified as different regions”, and “wherein the first classification trained model is generated using first training data that indicates at least the non-biological tissue region including the first inner cavity region and the second inner cavity region and the biological tissue region”.
This limitation, as drafted, according to its broadest reasonable interpretation, recites a mental-process type abstract idea, which can practically be performed in the mind and/or with the with the aid of pen and paper or with a generic computer, in a computer environment, or merely using the generic computer as a tool to perform the steps. One of ordinary skill in the art could use a catheter image, and classify different regions within the image as different cavities, as biological and non-biological tissue.
That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind and/or be reasonably performed with an aid of pen and paper or on a generic computer. Accordingly, the claim recites a mental process-type abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2, Integrated into Practical Application: No- the claim recites the following additional elements of “an image acquisition unit configured to acquire a catheter image obtained by an image acquisition catheter inserted into a first cavity” and and “outputs the first classification data”.
Acquiring image data a form of data gathering that is a form of a pre-solution insignificant activity. Outputting data is a post-solution insignificant activity.
These additional elements, taken individually or in combination, merely amount to insignificant pre/post-solution activities and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This claim is therefore directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B, Inventive Concept: No - Similarly to Step 2A Prong 2, the additional claim elements merely recite insignificant extra-solution activities, which do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim. The claim additionally recites “an image acquisition unit”, “a first classification data output unit configured to input the acquired catheter image to a first classification trained model”, however, a computer/information processing devices and are well-known generic components that are used for imaging processing.
Accordingly, claim 1 is directed to non-eligible patent subject matter and is therefore rejected.
Regarding claim 2,
Step 1: Statutory category: Yes- A information processing device is disclosed, and is therefore a device.
Step 2: Step 2A, Prong 1, Judicial Exception: Yes- This claim recites the limitation “a first mode output unit configured to change the first classification data into a mode in which the first inner cavity region, the second inner cavity region, and the biological tissue region can be distinguished from one another, and to output the first classification data.”.
This limitation, as drafted, according to its broadest reasonable interpretation, recites a mental-process type abstract idea, which can practically be performed in the mind and/or with the with the aid of pen and paper or with a generic computer, in a computer environment, or merely using the generic computer as a tool to perform the steps. One of ordinary skill in the art could use a catheter image, and classify different regions within the image as different cavities.
That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind and/or be reasonably performed with an aid of pen and paper or on a generic computer. Accordingly, the claim recites a mental process-type abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2, Integrated into Practical Application: No- the claim recites the following additional elements of “an inner cavity region extraction unit configured to extract each of the first inner cavity region and the second inner cavity region from the non-biological tissue region in the first classification data”.
Extracting different regions is a form of data gathering that is a form of a pre-solution insignificant activity. Outputting data is a post-solution insignificant activity.
These additional elements, taken individually or in combination, merely amount to insignificant pre/post-solution activities and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This claim is therefore directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B, Inventive Concept: No - Similarly to Step 2A Prong 2, the additional claim elements merely recite insignificant extra-solution activities, which do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim. The claim additionally recites “an inner cavity region extraction unit”, and “a first mode output unit”, however, a computer/information processing devices and are well-known generic components that are used for imaging processing.
Accordingly, claim 2 is directed to non-eligible patent subject matter and is therefore rejected.
Regarding claim 3,
Step 1: Statutory category: Yes- A information processing device is disclosed, and is therefore a device.
Step 2: Step 2A, Prong 1, Judicial Exception: Yes- This claim recites the limitation “change the first classification data into a mode in which the first inner cavity region, the second inner cavity region, and the biological tissue region can be distinguished from one another”.
This limitation, as drafted, according to its broadest reasonable interpretation, recites a mental-process type abstract idea, which can practically be performed in the mind and/or with the with the aid of pen and paper or with a generic computer, in a computer environment, or merely using the generic computer as a tool to perform the steps. One of ordinary skill in the art could use a catheter image, and classify different regions within the image as different cavities.
That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind and/or be reasonably performed with an aid of pen and paper or on a generic computer. Accordingly, the claim recites a mental process-type abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2, Integrated into Practical Application: No- the claim recites the following additional elements of “a second mode output unit configured to: extract a non-inner cavity region that is neither the first inner cavity region nor the second inner cavity region from the non-biological tissue region in the first classification data”,
Extracting different regions is a form of data gathering that is a form of a pre-solution insignificant activity. Outputting data is a post-solution insignificant activity.
These additional elements, taken individually or in combination, merely amount to insignificant pre/post-solution activities and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This claim is therefore directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B, Inventive Concept: No - Similarly to Step 2A Prong 2, the additional claim elements merely recite insignificant extra-solution activities, which do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim. The claim additionally recites “an inner cavity region extraction unit”, and “a first mode output unit”, however, a computer/information processing devices and are well-known generic components that are used for imaging processing.
Accordingly, claim 3 is directed to non-eligible patent subject matter and is therefore rejected.
Regarding claim 4,
Step 1: Statutory category: Yes- A information processing device is disclosed, and is therefore a device.
Step 2: Step 2A, Prong 1, Judicial Exception: Yes- This claim recites the limitation “wherein the first classification trained model is configured to output the first classification data in which the biological tissue region, the first inner cavity region, the second inner cavity region, and the non-inner cavity region are classified as different regions from one another when the catheter image is input”
This limitation, as drafted, according to its broadest reasonable interpretation, recites a mental-process type abstract idea, which can practically be performed in the mind and/or with the with the aid of pen and paper or with a generic computer, in a computer environment, or merely using the generic computer as a tool to perform the steps. One of ordinary skill in the art could take a print out of a catheter image, and classify it as the biological tissue region, the first inner cavity region, the second inner cavity region, and the non-inner cavity region.
That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind and/or be reasonably performed with an aid of pen and paper or on a generic computer. Accordingly, the claim recites a mental process-type abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2, Integrated into Practical Application: No- The claim does not contain additional elements. Therefore, the claim does not integrate the judicial
exception into a practical application.
Step 2B, Inventive Concept: No - Similarly to Step 2A Prong 2, the additional claim elements merely recite insignificant extra-solution activities, which do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim.
Accordingly, claim 4 is directed to non-eligible patent subject matter and is therefore rejected.
Regarding claim 5,
Step 1: Statutory category: Yes- A information processing device is disclosed, and is therefore a device.
Step 2: Step 2A, Prong 1, Judicial Exception: Yes- This claim contains a judicial exception as noted above for claim 1.
Step 2A, Prong 2, Integrated into Practical Application: No- The claim recites the following additional elements of “wherein the image acquisition catheter is a radial scanning type tomographic image acquisition catheter”, “the catheter image is a radius-theta (RT) format image in which a plurality of pieces of scanning line data acquired from the image acquisition catheter are arrayed in parallel in order of a scanning angle; and the first classification data is a classification result of each pixel in the RT format image”
Acquiring a form of data gathering that is a form of a pre-solution insignificant activity.
These additional elements, taken individually or in combination, merely amount to insignificant pre/post-solution activities and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This claim is therefore directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B, Inventive Concept: No - Similarly to Step 2A Prong 2, the additional claim elements merely recite insignificant extra-solution activities, which do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim. The claim additionally recites wherein the image acquisition catheter is a radial scanning type tomographic image acquisition catheter; however, radial scanning type catheters are well-known generic components that are used for acquiring images inside of a cavity.
Accordingly, claim 5 is directed to non-eligible patent subject matter and is therefore rejected.
Regarding claim 6,
Step 1: Statutory category: Yes- A information processing device is disclosed, and is therefore a device.
Step 2: Step 2A, Prong 1, Judicial Exception: Yes- This claim recites the limitation “wherein the first classification trained model includes: a plurality of convolution layers; and at least one of the plurality of convolution layers is trained by performing padding processing of adding same data as that on a side with a large scanning angle to an outer side of a side with a small scanning angle and adding same data as that on a side with a small scanning angle to an outer side of a side with a large scanning angle”.
This limitation, as drafted, according to its broadest reasonable interpretation, recites a mental-process type abstract idea, which can practically be performed in the mind and/or with the with the aid of pen and paper or with a generic computer, in a computer environment, or merely using the generic computer as a tool to perform the steps. One of ordinary skill in the art could add data from various angles using a pen and paper or a generic computer. Further, a training a model can be completed on a generic computer.
That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind and/or be reasonably performed with an aid of pen and paper or on a generic computer. Accordingly, the claim recites a mental process-type abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2, Integrated into Practical Application: No- The claim does not contain additional elements. Therefore, the claim does not integrate the judicial
exception into a practical application.
Step 2B, Inventive Concept: No - Similarly to Step 2A Prong 2, the additional claim elements merely recite insignificant extra-solution activities, which do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim.
Accordingly, claim 6 is directed to non-eligible patent subject matter and is therefore rejected.
Regarding claim 7,
Step 1: Statutory category: Yes- A information processing device is disclosed, and is therefore a device.
Step 2: Step 2A, Prong 1, Judicial Exception: Yes- This claim recites the limitation “wherein in a case where the plurality of catheter images acquired in time series are input, the first classification trained model is configured to output the first classification data in which the non-biological tissue region and the biological tissue region are classified regarding a latest catheter image among the plurality of catheter images; and the first classification trained model includes a memory portion configured to store information regarding the catheter image input in past, and the first classification trained models is configured to output the first classification data on a basis of information held in the memory portion and the latest catheter image among the plurality of catheter images”
This limitation, as drafted, according to its broadest reasonable interpretation, recites a mental-process type abstract idea, which can practically be performed in the mind and/or with the with the aid of pen and paper or with a generic computer, in a computer environment, or merely using the generic computer as a tool to perform the steps. One of ordinary skill in the art could organize images on the basis of the time the image was captured.
That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind and/or be reasonably performed with an aid of pen and paper or on a generic computer. Accordingly, the claim recites a mental process-type abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2, Integrated into Practical Application: No- The claim does not contain additional elements. Therefore, the claim does not integrate the judicial
exception into a practical application.
Step 2B, Inventive Concept: No - Similarly to Step 2A Prong 2, the additional claim elements merely recite insignificant extra-solution activities, which do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim.
Accordingly, claim 7 is directed to non-eligible patent subject matter and is therefore rejected.
Regarding claim 8,
Step 1: Statutory category: Yes- A information processing device is disclosed, and is therefore a device.
Step 2: Step 2A, Prong 1, Judicial Exception: Yes- This claim recites the limitation “wherein the first classification trained model is configured to output the first classification data in which the biological tissue region, the non-biological tissue region, and a medical instrument region indicating a medical instrument inserted into the first cavity or the second cavity are classified as different regions, when the catheter image is input”.
This limitation, as drafted, according to its broadest reasonable interpretation, recites a mental-process type abstract idea, which can practically be performed in the mind and/or with the with the aid of pen and paper or with a generic computer, in a computer environment, or merely using the generic computer as a tool to perform the steps. One of ordinary skill in the art could organize identify areas in the images as part of a first or a second cavity, or part of a medical instrument.
That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind and/or be reasonably performed with an aid of pen and paper or on a generic computer. Accordingly, the claim recites a mental process-type abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2, Integrated into Practical Application: No- The claim does not contain additional elements. Therefore, the claim does not integrate the judicial
exception into a practical application.
Step 2B, Inventive Concept: No - Similarly to Step 2A Prong 2, the additional claim elements merely recite insignificant extra-solution activities, which do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim.
Accordingly, claim 8 is directed to non-eligible patent subject matter and is therefore rejected.
Regarding claim 9,
Step 1: Statutory category: Yes- A information processing device is disclosed, and is therefore a device.
Step 2: Step 2A, Prong 1, Judicial Exception: Yes- This claim recites the limitations
“a second classification data acquisition unit configured to input the acquired catheter image to a second classification trained model that, upon receiving input of the catheter image, outputs second classification data in which the non-biological tissue region including the first inner cavity region and the biological tissue region are classified as different regions, and acquires second classification data to be output”, “a synthesis classification data output unit configured to output synthesis classification data in which the second classification data is synthesized with the first classification data; and
the second classification trained model is generated using second training data that indicates only the first inner cavity region of the non-biological tissue region, and wherein the second classification trained model is configured to output the second classification data in which the biological tissue region, the non-biological tissue region, and a medical instrument region indicating a medical instrument inserted into the first cavity or the second cavity are classified as different regions from one another, when the catheter image is input”.
This limitation, as drafted, according to its broadest reasonable interpretation, recites a mental-process type abstract idea, which can practically be performed in the mind and/or with the with the aid of pen and paper or with a generic computer, in a computer environment, or merely using the generic computer as a tool to perform the steps. One of ordinary skill in the art could take an input image, and “output”/differentiate regions/areas/images that are a part of a biological tissue region, a non-biological tissue region, or a medical instrument.
That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind and/or be reasonably performed with an aid of pen and paper or on a generic computer. Accordingly, the claim recites a mental process-type abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2, Integrated into Practical Application: No- The claim does not contain additional elements. Therefore, the claim does not integrate the judicial
exception into a practical application.
Step 2B, Inventive Concept: No - Similarly to Step 2A Prong 2, the additional claim elements merely recite insignificant extra-solution activities, which do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim. The claim additionally recites “a second classification data acquisition unit configured to input the acquired catheter image to a second classification trained model that”, “a synthesis classification data output unit”, however, a computer/information processing devices and are well-known generic components that are used for imaging processing.
Accordingly, claim 9 is directed to non-eligible patent subject matter and is therefore rejected.
Regarding claim 10,
Step 1: Statutory category: Yes- A information processing device is disclosed, and is therefore a device.
Step 2: Step 2A, Prong 1, Judicial Exception: Yes- This claim recites the limitation “wherein the first classification trained model is configured to further output a probability that each portion of the catheter image is the biological tissue region or a probability that each portion of the catheter image is the non-biological tissue region; the second classification trained model is configured to further output a probability that each portion of the catheter image is the biological tissue region or a probability that each portion of the catheter image is the non-biological tissue region; and the synthesis classification data output unit is configured to output synthesis classification data in which the second classification data is synthesized with the first classification data on a basis of a result of calculating a probability that each portion of the catheter image is the biological tissue region or a probability that each portion of the catheter image is the non-biological tissue region”.
This limitation, as drafted, according to its broadest reasonable interpretation, recites a mental-process type abstract idea, which can practically be performed in the mind and/or with the with the aid of pen and paper or with a generic computer, in a computer environment, or merely using the generic computer as a tool to perform the steps. One of ordinary skill in the art could look calculate the proportion of an image that that is either a biological or non-biological tissue region, and then use that to calculate a probability than part of the tissue is either a biological or non-biological tissue region.
That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind and/or be reasonably performed with an aid of pen and paper or on a generic computer. Accordingly, the claim recites a mental process-type abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2, Integrated into Practical Application: No- The claim does not contain additional elements. Therefore, the claim does not integrate the judicial
exception into a practical application.
Step 2B, Inventive Concept: No - Similarly to Step 2A Prong 2, the additional claim elements merely recite insignificant extra-solution activities, which do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim.
Accordingly, claim 10 is directed to non-eligible patent subject matter and is therefore rejected.
Regarding claim 11,
Step 1: Statutory category: Yes- A information processing device is disclosed, and is therefore a device.
Step 2: Step 2A, Prong 1, Judicial Exception: Yes- This claim contains a judicial exception as noted above for claim 1.
Step 2A, Prong 2, Integrated into Practical Application: No- the claim recites the following additional elements of “wherein the image acquisition catheter is a three-dimensional scanning catheter that is configured to sequentially acquire the plurality of catheter images along a longitudinal direction of the image acquisition catheter; and a three-dimensional output unit configured to output a three-dimensional image generated on a basis of a plurality of pieces of the first classification data generated from the plurality of respective acquired catheter images”.
Acquiring a plurality of images a form of data gathering that is a form of a pre-solution insignificant activity. Outputting a 3D image is a post-solution insignificant activity.
These additional elements, taken individually or in combination, merely amount to insignificant pre/post-solution activities and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This claim is therefore directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B, Inventive Concept: No - Similarly to Step 2A Prong 2, the additional claim elements merely recite insignificant extra-solution activities, which do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim. The claim additionally recites “wherein the image acquisition catheter is a three-dimensional scanning catheter”, and “a three-dimensional output unit”, however, image acquisition catheters and display units are well-known generic components that are used for acquiring and outputting catheter images.
Accordingly, claim 11 is directed to non-eligible patent subject matter and is therefore rejected.
Regarding claim 12,
Step 1: Statutory category: Yes- A information processing device is disclosed, and is therefore a device.
Step 2: Step 2A, Prong 1, Judicial Exception: Yes- This claim contains a judicial exception as noted above for claim 1.
Step 2A, Prong 2, Integrated into Practical Application: No- the claim recites the following additional elements of “wherein the image acquisition unit is configured to acquire a plurality of two- dimensional images obtained in time series using an image acquisition catheter; and the information processing device further includes: a three-dimensional output unit configured to output a three- dimensional image generated on a basis of the plurality of pieces of first classification data generated from the plurality of respective acquired two-dimensional images; a display region selection unit configured to receive a selection of a display target region to be displayed as the three-dimensional image from at least the biological tissue region and the non-biological tissue region; and the three-dimensional output unit is configured to output, as the three- dimensional image, the display target region received by the display region selection unit”.
Acquiring images is a form of data gathering that is a form of a pre-solution insignificant activity. Outputting images a post-solution insignificant activity.
These additional elements, taken individually or in combination, merely amount to insignificant pre/post-solution activities and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This claim is therefore directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B, Inventive Concept: No - Similarly to Step 2A Prong 2, the additional claim elements merely recite insignificant extra-solution activities, which do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim. The claim additionally recites “image acquisition unit”, “a three-dimensional output unit”, “a display region selection unit”, however, these are all are well-known generic components that are used for acquiring and outputting catheter images.
Accordingly, claim 12 is directed to non-eligible patent subject matter and is therefore rejected.
Regarding claim 13,
Step 1: Statutory category: Yes- A information processing device is disclosed, and is therefore a device.
Step 2: Step 2A, Prong 1, Judicial Exception: Yes- This claim contains a judicial exception as noted above for claim 1.
Step 2A, Prong 2, Integrated into Practical Application: No- the claim recites the following additional elements of “wherein the image acquisition unit is configured to acquire a plurality of two- dimensional images obtained in time series using an image acquisition catheter; the information processing device further including a three-dimensional output unit configured to output, to a display device, a three-dimensional image generated on a basis of the plurality of pieces of first classification data generated from the plurality of respective acquired two-dimensional images; and the three-dimensional output unit is configured to simultaneously output, to different places of the display device from each other, both the three-dimensional image corresponding to a biological tissue region and the three-dimensional image corresponding to a non-biological tissue region”.
Acquiring images a form of data gathering that is a form of a pre-solution insignificant activity. Outputting and displaying images is a post-solution insignificant activity.
These additional elements, taken individually or in combination, merely amount to insignificant pre/post-solution activities and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This claim is therefore directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B, Inventive Concept: No - Similarly to Step 2A Prong 2, the additional claim elements merely recite insignificant extra-solution activities, which do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim. The claim additionally recites “image acquisition unit”, “the information processing device”, “the information processing device further including a three-dimensional output unit configured to output, to a display device”, however, these are all well-known generic components that are used for image processing.
Accordingly, claim 13 is directed to non-eligible patent subject matter and is therefore rejected.
Regarding claim 14,
Step 1: Statutory category: Yes- . An information processing method for causing a computer to execute a process, is disclosed, therefore a method is disclosed.
Step 2: Step 2A, Prong 1, Judicial Exception: Yes- This claim recites the limitation “inputting the acquired catheter image to a first classification trained model that is generated using first training data that indicates a non-biological tissue region at least including a first inner cavity region that is inside of the first cavity and a second inner cavity region that is inside of a second cavity in which the image acquisition catheter is not inserted and a biological tissue region, and outputs first classification data in which the non-biological tissue region and the biological tissue region are classified as different regions when the catheter image is input, and outputting the first classification data”
This limitation, as drafted, according to its broadest reasonable interpretation, recites a mental-process type abstract idea, which can practically be performed in the mind and/or with the with the aid of pen and paper or with a generic computer, in a computer environment, or merely using the generic computer as a tool to perform the steps. One of ordinary skill in the art could identify/differentiate regions in an image that relate to different cavities and determine whether a region has biological or non-biological tissue.
That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind and/or be reasonably performed with an aid of pen and paper or on a generic computer. Accordingly, the claim recites a mental process-type abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2, Integrated into Practical Application: No- the claim recites the following additional elements of “acquiring a catheter image obtained by an image acquisition catheter inserted into a first cavity”.
Acquiring a catheter image a form of data gathering that is a form of a pre-solution insignificant activity.
These additional elements, taken individually or in combination, merely amount to insignificant pre/post-solution activities and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This claim is therefore directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B, Inventive Concept: No - Similarly to Step