DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This action is responsive to the Amendment filed on 01/09/2026.
Claims 1-33 are pending in the case.
No claims have been cancelled.
No claims have been added.
Claims 1 and 33 are independent claims.
Claim Objections
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 19 recites “wherein the second region is set in a position does not overlap where the treatment tool appears…”, where “wherein the second region is set in a position that does not overlap where the treatment tool appears…” was apparently intended.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 10, 17-22, 25-28, 30, 32 and 33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inokihara Kazuyuki et al. (JP 2016062488 A, published 04/25/2016, hereinafter “Inokihara”) in view of Xu Shiping et al. (WO 2021/045996 A1, published 03/11/2021, hereinafter “Shiping”).
NOTE: Examiner will be citing from the attached English translation of Inokihara.
Independent Claim 1:
Inokihara discloses an apparatus comprising:
a first processor, wherein the first processor is configured to (Inokihara: Fig. 2, page 2.):
acquire an image captured using an endoscope (Inokihara: last paragraph of page 6.),
display the acquired image in a first region on a screen of a first display unit (Inokihara: Fig. 9, third to last paragraph of page 2 and fourth paragraph of page 3.),
detect a treatment tool from the acquired image (Inokihara: last paragraph of page 6.),
choose a treatment name corresponding to the detected treatment tool (When a tool is detected in the endoscopic image, the system extracts reflection information corresponding to the detected treatment tool, the reflection information is then displayed to the user for confirmation, Inokihara: last two paragraphs of page 5 and first five paragraphs of page 6. As can be seen in the translated version of Fig. 10, the reflection information comprises a treatment name (“Endoscopic Gastrointestinal Hemostasis”). When the user confirms the reflection information, the confirmed information is used to generate a medical report, Inokihara: second to last paragraph of page 6.),
display the treatment name in a second region on the screen of the first display unit (Inokihara: Fig. 10 and first five paragraphs of page 6).
Inokihara teaches that a stent can be used for “indwelling procedures.” Since procedures is in the plural form, Examiner considers Inokihara to teach that a single tool (stent) can be associated with multiple treatments (indwelling procedures).
Fig. 10 of Inokihara displays the therapy name (“Endoscopic Gastrointestinal Hemostasis”) within an interface element that appears to be a drop-down menu interface (drop-down menus typically have a down arrow icon on the right-hand side of a currently selected option). Although, Inokihara doesn’t explicitly describe the interface element as a drop-down menu, such functionality within a report generation interface is known by one of ordinary skill in the art and is demonstrated by Shiping. Shiping teaches that entries are populated with information corresponding to detected objects in a medical image and the entries can include a drop-down menu interface (an interface element that displays a down arrow icon next to a currently selected option) that enables a user to select an option amongst a plurality of displayed options corresponding to a particular entry in order to enable the user to edit the entry, Shiping: Figs. 3A-6, abstract, pages 15-17.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the apparatus of Inokihara by utilizing the drop-down functionality taught by Shiping for the entries in Fig. 10 of Inokihara.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to improve the user’s experience by providing an effective means for editing the populated entries used for generating the report (Shiping: Figs. 3A-6, abstract, pages 15-17).
Accordingly, in combination Inokihara in view of Shiping teaches an apparatus wherein the first processor is configured to:
choose a plurality of treatment names corresponding to the detected treatment tool (When a tool is detected in the endoscopic image, the system extracts reflection information corresponding to the detected treatment tool, the reflection information is then displayed to the user for confirmation, Inokihara: last two paragraphs of page 5 and first five paragraphs of page 6. As can be seen in the translated version of Fig. 10, the reflection information comprises a technique/treatment name entry (“Endoscopic Gastrointestinal Hemostasis”) that corresponds to a detected tool (e.g. “clip”). As also shown in Fig. 10, the treatment name is displayed within a drop-down interface element. A drop-down interface element is associated with multiple options for a particular entry, Shiping: Figs. 3A-6, abstract, pages 15-17. Accordingly, the technique entry would comprise multiple options (treatment names) for a corresponding tool (e.g. clip).),
display the plurality of chosen treatment names in a second region on the screen of the first display unit (The user can cause the drop-down menu for an entry to be displayed, Shiping: Figs. 3A-6, abstract, pages 15-17. The drop-down entry can correspond to a treatment name, Inokihara: Fig. 10 and first 5 paragraphs of page 6), and
accept selection of one treatment name from among the plurality of displayed treatment names (The user can select one of the options within the drop-down menu for a particular entry, Shiping: Figs. 3A-6, abstract, pages 15-17. The particular entry can correspond to treatment names, Inokihara: Fig. 10 and first 5 paragraphs of page 6).
Claim 2:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Inokihara in view of Shiping further teaches an apparatus wherein the first processor displays the plurality of treatment names in the second region in a state where one treatment name is selected in advance (When the reflection information confirmation screen is displayed a first technique/treatment name (“Endoscopic Gastrointestinal Hemostasis”) is selected within the drop down menu interface (name is selected in advance), the user can provide input to change the treatment name, Inokihara: page 6 paragraphs 4 and 5. When the user wants to change a selected option in the drop down menu the full list of options for a corresponding entry is displayed while a preselected option is still displayed as selected, Shiping: Fig. 5, page 16 lines 19-31 and page 17 lines 1-11.).
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to improve the user’s experience by providing an effective means for editing the populated entries used for generating the report (Shiping: Figs. 3A-6, abstract, pages 15-17).
Claim 3:
The rejection of claim 2 is incorporated. Inokihara in view of Shiping further teaches an apparatus wherein the first processor chooses the plurality of treatment names by referring to a table in which the plurality of treatment names are associated for each treatment tool (The system extracts reflection information by referring to a detection information/reflection information association storage unit where reflection information corresponds to information specified for each drug and treatment tool, Inokihara: paragraph 4 of page 6. Although no particular data structure is discussed for storing the association between tools and reflection information, Examiner takes Official Notice that it is well-known, routine and conventional to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to store data associations in a table. One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to provide an effective means for storing and retrieving the association data. The extracted reflection information includes a plurality of treatment names (see the rejection of claim 1 above).).
Claim 10:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Inokihara in view of Shiping further teaches an apparatus wherein the first processor is configured to detect a plurality of types of treatment tools, choose, in a case where a specific treatment tool among the plurality of types of the treatment tools is detected, a plurality of treatment names corresponding to the detected specific treatment tool, display the plurality of chosen treatment names in the second region, and accept selection of one treatment name from among the plurality of displayed treatment names (The system can detect different types of tools, Inokihara: last 2 lines of page 4, first 3 paragraphs of page 5. A specific tool from the plurality of types of tools can be detected, Inokihara: Fig. 10, page 6. A plurality of treatment names associated with the detected tool is displayed to the user and a selection of a particular name can be accepted (see the rejection of claim 1 above).).
Claim 17:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Inokihara in view of Shiping further teaches an apparatus wherein, in a case where the treatment tool is detected from the image, the first processor displays a figure or a symbol indicating detection of the treatment tool, in a fourth region on the screen of the first display unit (Checkboxes with checkmarks within the detection information confirmation screen can be used to indicate that a particular tool has been detected from the image, Inokihara: Fig. 10, paragraph 5 of page 6.).
Claim 18:
The rejection of claim 17 is incorporated. Inokihara in view of Shiping further teaches an apparatus wherein the first processor displays the figure or the symbol corresponding to the detected treatment tool in the fourth region (Checkboxes with checkmarks within the detection information confirmation screen can be used to indicate that a particular tool has been detected from the image, Inokihara: Fig. 10, paragraph 5 of page 6.).
Claim 19:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Inokihara in view of Shiping further teaches an apparatus wherein the second region is set in a position that does not overlap where the treatment tool appears and is adjacent to where the treatment tool appears within the image displayed in the first region (The window that includes the entries are displayed adjacent to the medical image, Shiping: Fig. 7, page 17 lines 24-30. The medical image is where the treatment tool appears, Inokihara: Fig. 9, fourth to the last paragraph of page 5. Also, options corresponding to an entry and associated with a detected object within the medical image are also displayed adjacent to the detected object, Shiping: Fig. 4A and Fig 5 item 521.).
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to provide an effective visual association between the entry options and the detected object within the medical image (Shiping: Figs. 4A, 5 and 7).
Claim 20:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Inokihara in view of Shiping further teaches an apparatus wherein the first processor is configured to acquire information on a site, and record information on the selected treatment name in association with the acquired information on the site (Inokihara: Fig. 17, third and fourth to last paragraphs of page 8.).
Claim 21:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Inokihara in view of Shiping further teaches an apparatus wherein the first processor displays a list box in which the plurality of treatment names are displayed in a list, in the second region (The user can cause the drop-down menu (list box) for an entry to be displayed, Shiping: Figs. 3A-6, abstract, pages 15-17. The drop-down entry can correspond to a treatment name, Inokihara: Fig. 10 and first 5 paragraphs of page 6).
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to provide an effective visual association between the entry options and the detected object within the medical image (Shiping: Figs. 4A, 5 and 7).
Claim 22:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Inokihara in view of Shiping further teaches an apparatus wherein the first processor records a static image captured during a treatment, in association with information on the selected treatment name (Inokihara: Fig. 17, page 8.)
Claim 25:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Inokihara in view of Shiping further teaches an apparatus wherein the first processor is configured to:
display the plurality of treatment names in the second region (The user can cause the drop-down menu comprising a plurality of options for an entry to be displayed, Shiping: Figs. 3A-6, abstract, pages 15-17. The drop-down entry can correspond to a treatment name, Inokihara: Fig. 10 and first 5 paragraphs of page 6),
display a plurality of options regarding a treatment target in a fifth region on the screen of the first display unit before selection of the treatment name is accepted or after the selection of the treatment name is accepted (Another entry corresponding to the treatment (e.g. “Treatment Information:”) is displayed in the interface, this also corresponds to a drop-down interface, Inokihara: Fig. 10. The user can select an option from a list of options presented in the drop-down interface, Shiping: Figs. 3A-6, abstract, pages 15-17.), and
accept one selection from among the plurality of options displayed in the fifth region (The user can select an option from a list of options presented in the drop-down interface, Shiping: Figs. 3A-6, abstract, pages 15-17. The drop-down interface can correspond to a treatment information entry, Inokihara: Fig. 10.).
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to provide an effective visual association between the entry options and the detected object within the medical image (Shiping: Figs. 4A, 5 and 7).
Claim 26:
The rejection of claim 25 is incorporated. Inokihara in view of Shiping further teaches an apparatus wherein the plurality of options regarding the treatment target are a plurality of options for a detailed site or a size of the treatment target (The options can include the site and size of the subject of a medical image, Shiping Fig. 5. The subject of the medical image can be a treatment target associated with a particular site, Inokihara: Figs, 10 and 17, fourth to last paragraph of page 8.).
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to provide a more effective report creation interface by providing more relevant options for populating the report associated with the medical image.
Claim 27:
Inokihara in view of Shiping further teaches a report creation support device that supports creation of a report, comprising (Inokihara: page 6):
a second processor, wherein the second processor is configured to (Inokihara: pages 2 and 3.):
display a report creation screen with at least an input field for a treatment name (Inokihara: Fig. 11, second to last paragraph in page 6.),
on a second display unit (Inokihara: pages 2 and 3.), acquire information on the treatment name selected in the information processing apparatus according to claim 1 (see the rejection of claim 1.),
automatically input the acquired information on the treatment name to the input field for the treatment name, and accept correction of the automatically input information of the input field for the treatment name (Inokihara: Fig. 11, second to last paragraph in page 6.).
Claim 28:
The rejection of claim 27 is incorporated. Inokihara in view of Shipping further teaches a device wherein, in a case where an instruction to correct the information on the treatment name is given, the second processor is configured to display the plurality of treatment names on the second display unit, and accept the correction of the information on the treatment name via selection (The user can correct the treatment name via the drop-down interface, Inokihara: Fig. 10, page 6. The drop-down interface presents a plurality of options corresponding to a particular entry, Shiping: Fig. 5, page 16 lines 19-31 and page 17 lines 1-11.).
Claim 30:
The rejection of claim 27 is incorporated. Inokihara in view of Shipping further teaches a device wherein the second processor displays the input field for the treatment name such that the input field for the treatment name is distinguishable from other input fields on the report creation screen (Inokihara: Fig. 11, second to last paragraph of page 6.).
Claim 32:
Inokihara in view of Shipping further teaches an endoscope system comprising:
an endoscope (Inokihara: page 2.);
the information processing apparatus according to claim 1 (See the rejection of claim 1 above.); and
an input device (Inokihara: pages 2 and 3.).
Independent Claim 33:
Inokihara discloses a method comprising:
a step of acquiring an image captured using an endoscope (Inokihara: last paragraph of page 6.),
a step of displaying the acquired image in a first region on a screen of a first display unit (Inokihara: Fig. 9, third to last paragraph of page 2 and fourth paragraph of page 3.),
a step of detecting a treatment tool from the acquired image (Inokihara: last paragraph of page 6.),
a step of choosing a treatment name corresponding to the detected treatment tool (When a tool is detected in the endoscopic image, the system extracts reflection information corresponding to the detected treatment tool, the reflection information is then displayed to the user for confirmation, Inokihara: last two paragraphs of page 5 and first five paragraphs of page 6. As can be seen in the translated version of Fig. 10, the reflection information comprises a treatment name (“Endoscopic Gastrointestinal Hemostasis”). The when the user confirms the reflection information, the confirmed information is used to generate a medical report, Inokihara: second to last paragraph of page 6.),
a step of displaying the treatment name in a second region on the screen of the first display unit (Inokihara: Fig. 10 and first five paragraphs of page 6).
Inokihara teaches that a stent can be used for “indwelling procedures.” Since procedures is in the plural form, Examiner considers Inokihara to teach that a single tool (stent) can be associated with multiple treatments (indwelling procedures).
Fig. 10 of Inokihara displays the therapy name (“Endoscopic Gastrointestinal Hemostasis”) within an interface element that appears to be a drop-down menu interface (drop-down menus typically have a down arrow icon on the right-hand side of a currently selected option). Although, Inokihara doesn’t explicitly describe the interface element as a drop-down menu, such functionality within a report generation interface is known by one of ordinary skill in the art and is demonstrated by Shiping. Shiping teaches that entries are populated with information corresponding to detected objects in a medical image and the entries can include a drop-down menu interface (an interface element that displays a down arrow icon next to a currently selected option) that enables a user to select an option amongst a plurality of displayed options corresponding to a particular entry in order to enable the user to edit the entry, Shiping: Figs. 3A-6, abstract, pages 15-17.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of Inokihara by utilizing the drop-down functionality taught by Shiping for the entries in Fig. 10 of Inokihara.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to improve the user’s experience by providing an effective means for editing the populated entries used for generating the report (Shiping: Figs. 3A-6, abstract, pages 15-17).
Accordingly, in combination Inokihara in view of Shiping teaches an method comprising:
a step of choosing a plurality of treatment names corresponding to the detected treatment tool (When a tool is detected in the endoscopic image, the system extracts reflection information corresponding to the detected treatment tool, the reflection information is then displayed to the user for confirmation, Inokihara: last two paragraphs of page 5 and first five paragraphs of page 6. As can be seen in the translated version of Fig. 10, the reflection information comprises a technique/treatment name entry (“Endoscopic Gastrointestinal Hemostasis”) that corresponds to a detected tool (e.g. “clip”). As also shown in Fig. 10, the treatment name is displayed within a drop-down interface element. A drop-down interface element is associated with multiple options for a particular entry, Shiping: Figs. 3A-6, abstract, pages 15-17. Accordingly, the technique entry would comprise multiple options (treatment names) for a corresponding tool (e.g. clip).),
a step of displaying the plurality of chosen treatment names in a second region on the screen of the first display unit (The user can cause the drop-down menu for an entry to be displayed, Shiping: Figs. 3A-6, abstract, pages 15-17. The drop-down entry can correspond to a treatment name, Inokihara: Fig. 10 and first 5 paragraphs of page 6), and
accept selection of one treatment name from among the plurality of displayed treatment names (The user can select one of the options within the drop-down menu for a particular entry, Shiping: Figs. 3A-6, abstract, pages 15-17. The particular entry can correspond to treatment names, Inokihara: Fig. 10 and first 5 paragraphs of page 6).
Claim(s) 4-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inokihara in view of Shiping and further in view of Ono (US 2012/0069394 A1, published 03/22/2012, hereinafter “Ono”).
Claim 4:
The rejection of claim 3 is incorporated. Inokihara in view of Shiping does not appear to expressly teach an apparatus wherein:
in the table, information on the treatment name to be selected by default is further associated for each treatment tool, and
the first processor displays the plurality of treatment names in the second region in a state where one treatment name is selected in advance by referring to the table.
However, Ono teaches an apparatus wherein:
in the table, information on the menu option to be selected by default is indicated (The menu options (e.g. device name) are associated with an ordinal rank the table, the ordinal rank is used to indicate the order in which the menu options will be displayed in the drop-down menu, Ono: Fig. 13, ¶ [0089]-[0091]. As can be seen in Figs. 10, 11, 13 and 14, the top ranked item is displayed as initially selected. Accordingly, Examiner considers the ordinal rank field in the table to be the indication of the menu option to be selected by default.), and
the first processor displays a plurality of drop-down menu options in a second region in a state where one menu option is selected in advance by referring to the table (Ono: Figs. 10-14, ¶ [0089]-[0091].).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the apparatus of Inokihara in view of Shiping wherein:
in the table, information on the menu option to be selected by default is indicated, and
the first processor displays a plurality of drop-down menu options in a second region in a state where one menu option is selected in advance by referring to the table, as taught by Ono.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to improve the user’s experience by providing a more efficient selection means by providing a an automatically selected menu option that is more likely to be selected by the user (Ono: Figs. 13-14, ¶ [0089]-[0091].).
In implementing the ordinal ranking of menu options feature of Ono into the invention of Inokihara in view of Shiping, the ordered drop-down menu options indicated in the table (as taught by Ono) would correspond to treatment names associated with a respective treatment tool since the drop-down menu options in the invention of Inokihara in view of Shiping correspond to treatment names associated with a detected treatment tool. Accordingly, in combination, Inokihara in view of Shiping and further in view of Ono teaches an apparatus wherein:
in the table, information on the treatment name to be selected by default is further associated for each treatment tool, and
the first processor displays the plurality of treatment names in the second region in a state where one treatment name is selected in advance by referring to the table.
Claim 5:
The rejection of claim 3 is incorporated. Inokihara in view of Shiping does not appear to expressly teach an apparatus wherein:
in the table, information on a display order of the plurality of treatment names is further associated for each treatment tool, and
the first processor displays the plurality of treatment names in the display order corresponding to the detected treatment tool in the second region by referring to the table.
However, Ono teaches an apparatus wherein:
in the table, information on a display order of a plurality drop-down menu options is indicated (Ono: Figs. 13-14, ¶ [0089]-[0091].), and
the first processor displays the plurality of drop-down menu options in the display order by referring to the table (Ono: Figs. 13-14, ¶ [0089]-[0091].).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the apparatus of Inokihara in view of Shiping wherein:
in the table, information on a display order of a plurality drop-down menu options is indicated, and
the first processor displays the plurality of drop-down menu options in the display order by referring to the table, as taught by Ono.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to improve the user’s experience by providing the menu options in a order that prioritizes menu options that are more likely to be selected (Ono: Figs. 13-14, ¶ [0089]-[0091].).
In implementing the ordinal ranking of menu options feature of Ono into the invention of Inokihara in view of Shiping, the ordered drop-down menu options indicated in the table (as taught by Ono) would correspond to treatment names associated with a respective treatment tool since the drop-down menu options in the invention of Inokihara in view of Shiping correspond to treatment names associated with a detected treatment tool. Accordingly, in combination, Inokihara in view of Shiping and further in view of Ono teaches an apparatus wherein:
in the table, information on a display order of the plurality of treatment names is further associated for each treatment tool, and
the first processor displays the plurality of treatment names in the display order corresponding to the detected treatment tool in the second region by referring to the table.
Claim 6:
The rejection of claim 5 is incorporated. Inokihara in view of Shiping and further in view of Ono further teaches an apparatus wherein the first processor is configured to:
record a history of selection of the treatment name (A history of the selection of a menu option for a drop-down menu is recorded, Ono: Figs. 13-14, ¶ [0089]-[0091]. The menu options corresponding to the drop-down menu correspond to treatment names, Inokihara: Fig. 10.), and
correct the information on the display order of the treatment names registered in the table in a descending order of selection frequency on the basis of the history of the selection of the treatment name (Ono: Figs. 13-14, ¶ [0089]-[0091]; Inokihara: Fig. 10.).
Claim 7:
The rejection of claim 3 is incorporated. Inokihara in view of Shiping does not appear to expressly teach an apparatus wherein the first processor corrects the information on the display order of the treatment names registered in the table in an order of newest selection.
However, Ono teaches an apparatus wherein the first processor corrects the information on the display order of the menu options of a drop-down menu registered in the table in an order of newest selection (Ono: Figs. 16-17, ¶ [0094]-[0095].).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the apparatus of Inokihara in view of Shiping wherein the first processor corrects the information on the display order of the menu options of a drop-down menu registered in the table in an order of newest selection, as taught by Ono.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to improve the user’s experience by providing the menu options in a order that prioritizes a menu options that are more likely to be selected (Ono: Figs. 13-14, ¶ [0089]-[0091].).
In implementing the ordinal ranking of menu options feature of Ono into the invention of Inokihara in view of Shiping, the ordered drop-down menu options indicated in the table (as taught by Ono) would correspond to treatment names associated with a respective treatment tool since the drop-down menu options in the invention of Inokihara in view of Shiping correspond to treatment names associated with a detected treatment tool. Accordingly, in combination, Inokihara in view of Shiping and further in view of Ono teaches an apparatus wherein the first processor corrects the information on the display order of the treatment names registered in the table in an order of newest selection.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inokihara in view of Shiping and further in view of Guyan et al. (US 2012/0296858 A1, published 11/22/2012, hereinafter “Guyan”).
Claim 11:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Inokihara in view of Shiping does not appear to expressly teach an apparatus wherein the first processor displays items of no treatment and/or post-selection as selectable items in addition to the plurality of chosen treatment names, in the second region.
However, in Fig. 10 of Inokihara there is the “treatment information” dropdown entry field that seems to be dependent on the “technique” dropdown entry field since in the example given, the technique is “Endoscopic Gastrointestinal Hemostasis” and the treatment information is “stop bleeding.” It would seem that the options for the treatment information need to correspond to the option selected for the technique. Although, Inokihara does not explicitly state the two fields are dependent on each other, if such a feature was not included in Inokihara, the entries could provide mismatched data. Guyan teaches an apparatus that provides a first dropdown entry field that is dependent on a second dropdown entry field where the first dropdown entry field is only provided after the first dropdown entry field is selected (Guyan: Fig. 9, ¶ [0060].).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the apparatus of Inokihara in view of Shiping wherein the dropdown entry fields have a dependency relationship as taught by Guyan.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to better ensure the proper entry of data into the fields.
In combination, Inokihara in view of Shiping and further in view of Guyan teaches an apparatus wherein the first processor displays items of no treatment and/or post-selection as selectable items in addition to the plurality of chosen treatment names, in the second region (A dependent drop-down entry field is displayed after a parent dropdown entry field is selected (post-selection display items), Guyan: Fig. 9, ¶ [0060]. The parent dropdown entry field corresponds to a treatment name, Inokihara: Fig. 10).
Claim(s) 23, 24 and 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inokihara in view of Shiping and further in view of Watai et al. (US 2003/0128400 A1, published 07/10/2003, hereinafter “Watai”).
Claim 23:
The rejection of claim 22 is incorporated. Inokihara in view of Shiping does not appear to expressly teach an apparatus wherein the first processor records, as a candidate for an image to be used in a report or a diagnosis, the static image captured during the treatment, in association with the information on the selected treatment name.
However, Watai teaches an apparatus wherein the first processor records, as a candidate for an image to be used in a report or a diagnosis, an endoscopic static image (Watai: Fig. 9, ¶ [0070], [0125], [0127].).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the apparatus of Inokihara in view of Shiping wherein the first processor records, as a candidate for an image to be used in a report or a diagnosis, an endoscopic static image, as taught by Watai.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to provide improve the user’s experience by providing a better visual understanding of the subject of the report (Watai: Fig. 9, ¶ [0070], [0125], [0127].).
In implementing the image report feature of Watai into the invention of Inokihara in view of Shiping, the selected endoscopic image that is inserted into the report (as taught by Watai) would correspond to an endoscopic static image captured during the treatment, in association with the information on the selected treatment since the report in the invention of Inokihara in view of Shiping corresponds to the endoscopic image corresponding to a particular tool and treatment. Accordingly, in combination, Inokihara in view of Shiping and further in view of Watai teaches an apparatus wherein the first processor records, as a candidate for an image to be used in a report or a diagnosis, the static image captured during the treatment, in association with the information on the selected treatment name.
Claim 24:
The rejection of claim 23 is incorporated. Inokihara in view of Shiping and further in view of Watai further teaches an apparatus wherein the first processor records, as a candidate for an image to be used in a report or a diagnosis, the static image captured during the treatment, in association with the information on the selected treatment name (All of the endoscopic images captured during the process associated with the report are presented as candidates, Watai: Fig. 9, ¶ [0126]. The process associated with the report corresponds to a treatment and the image is associated with a treatment name, Inokihara: Figs. 11 and 17, page 8.).
Claim 31:
Inokihara in view of Shiping further teaches a device comprising:
a second processor, wherein the second processor is configured to (Inokihara: pages 2 and 3):
display a report creation screen with at least input fields for a treatment name, on a second display unit (Inokihara: Fig. 11, pages 2 and 3, second to last paragraph in page 6.),
acquire information on the treatment name and a static image selected in the information processing apparatus according to claim 22 (see the rejection of claim 22),
automatically input the acquired information on the treatment name to the input field for the treatment name (Inokihara: Fig. 11, second to last paragraph in page 6.),
accept correction of the automatically input information of the input field for the treatment name (Inokihara: Fig. 11, second to last paragraph in page 6.).
Inokihara does not appear to expressly teach a device wherein:
the report creation screen is displayed with an input field for a static image;
the acquired static image is automatically input to the input field for the static image, and
correction of the automatically input static image of the input field for the static image is accepted.
However, Watai teaches a device wherein:
the report creation screen is displayed with an input field for a static image (Watai: Figs. 9 and 13, ¶ [0070], [0125], [0127], [0158], [0173]-[0174]);
the acquired static image is automatically input to the input field for the static image (Watai: Figs. 9 and 13, ¶ [0070], [0125], [0127], [0158], [0173]-[0174]), and
correction of the automatically input static image of the input field for the static image is accepted (Watai: Figs. 9 and 13, ¶ [0070], [0125], [0127], [0158], [0173]-[0174]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the device of Inokihara in view of Shiping wherein:
the report creation screen is displayed with an input field for a static image;
the acquired static image is automatically input to the input field for the static image, and
correction of the automatically input static image of the input field for the static image is accepted, as taught by Watai.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to provide improve the user’s experience by providing a better visual understanding of the subject of the report (Watai: Figs. 9 and 13, ¶ [0070], [0125], [0127], [0158], [0173]-[0174]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-9, 12-16 and 29 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendment to claim 19 has been fully considered and is persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. § 112 rejection of claim 19 is respectfully withdrawn.
Applicant’s prior art arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In regards to claim 1, Applicant argues that the prior art of record does not disclose the limitations “choose a plurality of treatment names corresponding to the detected treatment tool” and “accept selection of one treatment name from among the plurality of displayed treatment names” because neither Inokihara nor Shiping discloses these features (Remarks: pages 15-17). Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Examiner does not solely rely on Inokihara to teach the cited limitations of claim 1 nor does examiner rely solely on Shiping to teach the cited limitations of claim 1. Rather, Examiner relies on a particular combination of features from Inokihara and Shiping to reject the cited limitations. Applicant has ignored this particular combination of features in the response filed on 01/09/2026 and instead has attacked each reference individually. One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 U.S.P.Q. 871 (C.C.P.A. 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 U.S.P.Q. 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Accordingly, Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Therefore, Examiner respectfully asserts that the cited art sufficiently teaches the limitations recited in the claims.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL RODRIGUEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-3633. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 5:30 am - 2:30 pm.
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 Hong can be reached at (571) 272-4124. 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.
/DANIEL RODRIGUEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2178