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 .
The Applicant’s Remarks filed 11 May 2026 has been received and considered.
The 112(a) rejection in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 09 February 2026 is hereby withdrawn.
Claims 1 – 10 remain pending.
Claims 1 – 10 have been amended.
Claims 1 – 10, all of the claims still pending in this application, remain rejected.
Response to Applicant’s Remarks
In view of the Applicant’s remarks filed 11 May 2026, regarding amendments to independent claims 1 and 10, the previously applied prior art rejections are withdrawn. Applicant's arguments are rendered moot in view of the new grounds of rejection set forth below.
With regard to “circuitry”, the remarks at 6 suggest that “Applicant respectfully submits that one of ordinary skill in the art would clearly understand the meaning of "processing circuitry" based on both its extremely common usage in the art, its use in the claims, and the description in the specification.” However, the Federal Circuit does not agree. From MIT v Abacus, cited in MPEP 2181,
MIT urges that the term "aesthetic correction circuitry" connotes sufficient structure to avoid 112 ,p6 treatment. We agree. In contrast to the term "mechanism," dictionary definitions establish that the term "circuitry," by itself, connotes structure. Webster's Third New International Dictionary, 408-09 (1968 ed.) (defining "circuit" as "the complete path of an electric current including any displacement current" and "circuitry" as "the detailed plan of an electric circuit or network (as of a radio or television receiver)"); see also Linear Tech. Core.. v. /me.ala Linear Cor{l., 379 F.3d 1311, 1320 (Fed.Cir.2004). ("Technical dictionaries, which are evidence of the understandings of persons of skill in the technical arts, plainly indicate that the term 'circuit' connotes structure .... We conclude that Microsoft has not overcome the presumption that the "aesthetic correction circuitry" limitation is not a means-plus-function limitation. Microsoft urges that "circuitry" should be limited to hardware whereas MIT urged below that it should include both hardware and software. We conclude that the term "aesthetic correction circuitry" is clearly limited to hardware. MIT v Abacus, 462 F.3d 1344 at 1355-56 (Fed Cir 2006.) (emphasis added)
Thus, while the remarks allege an unsupported common understanding of “circuitry”, that is inconsistent with the relevant case law and with the technical definitions identified by the Federal Circuit. Either “circuitry” is a hardware element as in MIT, or it is used as a nonce word to refer to the structures in the specification (i.e. a means plus function element). There is no alternative absent an explicit and unambiguous redefinition in the specification. Applicant’s response is unpersuasive.
Claim Interpretation
Examiner note: claims 1 – 10 are being rejected with the Examiner interpreting the amended portion of claims 1 and 10 “at least two different AI- based algorithms” to be that of the enabled Algorithm A and Algorithm B that are defined in the Applicant’s Specification, which further correlate to Figure 5 of the Drawings. However, Algorithm C (currently not required by the claims) of the Specification is not clearly defined.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 – 10 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 requires processing circuitry with a particular configuration. The specification states that the storage circuity 120 is connected to the processing circuitry 110 and stores various kinds of information therein on page on page 9, lines 5 – 7 and further states that the processing circuitry1 110 is a processor that reads out each computer program from the storage circuitry 120 and executes the computer program to realize the function corresponding to the computer program. In other words, the processing circuitry 110 that has read out each computer program has each function illustrated in the processing circuitry 110 in FIG. 2 on page 9, lines 25 - 31. Even though the specification defines the various ways in which a processor can function, Examiner interprets (with respect to the diagram of Figure 2) that the processing circuitry and the storage circuitry are two separate components connected to each other meaning the processor is a distinct element from the storage media that would actually hold the instructions. Absent a hard-wired system such as an ASIC, a processor holds only a very limited number of instructions at any given point in time as a device (as opposed to a method where the instructions are understood to be serially fetched from a memory and executed by the processor). It is unclear at what point the processor would be configured as claimed, as a typical processor would hold nowhere near the number of instructions needed to perform the steps of claim 1. What state is the processor in when it is configured as claimed?
Claims 2 – 9 are also rejected by virtue of their dependency to claim 1.
Claim 10, an independent system claim, is rejected for the same reasons as applied to claim 1.
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.
Claims 1 – 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Publication No. 2024/0249407 A1 to JANG et al. (hereinafter JANG) in view of US Patent No. 11756673 B2 to Ishii et al. (hereinafter Ishii).
Claim 1
Regarding claim 1, an independent apparatus claim, JANG teaches a medical information processing apparatus, comprising (Abstract).
While JANG discloses the use of AI Analysis of medical images, which is likely to use multiple AI algorithms to achieve results, JANG does not explicitly teach acquire an analysis result of each of at least two different AI- based algorithms for a medical image; and
cause a terminal of a user to display a screen in a display mode combining the analysis results of the at least two different AI-based algorithms
However, Ishii teaches acquire an analysis result of each of at least two different AI- based algorithms for a medical image ("The AI service server 200 according to the present embodiment has various learned models and provides APIs for various image processing algorithms. For example, the AI service server 200 provides APIs for various algorithms for various organs such as the brain, lungs, heart, and liver, and for an algorithm for outputting various results for each organ. As an example, the AI service server 200 provides APIs for an algorithm for detecting a characteristic region from a difference in luminance values in medical image data, an algorithm for detecting a region indicating a characteristic perfusion state from a perfusion image, an algorithm for detecting a region indicating a characteristic shape in the shape of a blood vessel, and the like, for the brain. Furthermore, the AI service server 200 can provide APIs for various image processing algorithms for medical image data collected by various modalities of an X-ray diagnostic apparatus, an X-ray computed tomography (CT) apparatus, a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) apparatus, an ultrasonic diagnostic apparatus, a single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) apparatus, a positron emission computed tomography (PET) apparatus, and the like. That is, the AI service server 200 can include a plurality of learned models that use each medical image data collected by the aforementioned various modalities as input data. Column 2, lines 46 - 67 - Column 3, lines 1 - 2); and
cause a terminal of a user to display a screen in a display mode combining the analysis results of the at least two different AI-based algorithms (Figure 3; "For example, the extraction function 153 uses the type of the analysis processes as the extraction condition and extracts output data for each type of the analysis processes. As an example, the extraction function 153 uses the type of the learned models (algorithms) as the extraction condition and extracts output data for each type of the learned models. The display control function 154 performs control to display a plurality of pieces of information corresponding to a plurality of pieces of output data for each type of the learned models. That is, the display control function 154 collectively collects the analysis results of the AI service server 200 for each algorithm and allows the analysis results to be displayed in correlation with corresponding medical images.", Column 7, lines 27 - 39; "FIG. 4B is a diagram illustrating an example of a group of analysis results according to the first embodiment. For example, as illustrated in FIG. 4B, when lesion candidate regions are detected in “algorithm A”, “algorithm C”, and “algorithm E”, the extraction function 153 estimates “lesion: XXXX” related to “algorithm A”, “algorithm C”, and “algorithm E” as “candidate disease”. Then, the extraction function 153 extracts analysis results related to “candidate disease: XXXX”. The display control function 154 performs control to display the extracted analysis results for each disease. Although FIG. 4B illustrates the analysis results of only “algorithm A”, “algorithm C”, and “algorithm E”, when there is another algorithm related to “candidate disease: XXXX”, the analysis results of the algorithm are extracted and displayed in the display region R2.", Column 10, lines 35 - 39).
PNG
media_image1.png
520
632
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
687
326
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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 teachings of JANG to incorporate the use of multiple AI algorithms to analyze medical images and being able to display the results of those respective algorithms to a user, as disclosed by Ishii. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to give the user multiple results from AI algorithms based on analyzed medical images and allowing the user to choose preferred results based on the purpose of the required analysis.
Claim 2
Regarding claim 2, dependent on claim 1, JANG, in view of Ishii, teaches the invention as claimed in claim 1.
JANG, in view of Ishii, further teaches wherein the medical image is a three-dimensional image (Paragraph [0037]; "Specifically, 3D tomosynthesis images are the input for the AI analysis. The lesion scores and lesions markings (e.g., contour or heatmap) acquired as a result of analyzing the 3D tomosynthesis images may be projected onto a guide image for effective visualization), and
the processing circuitry is further configured to cause the terminal to display on the screen, a range to which attention needs to be paid in the three-dimensional image, based on the analysis result of each of the at least two different AI-based algorithms (Figures 6 and 7), where the navigation tool (annotated in the red box in figure 6 below; figure 7) displays a range of scores corresponding to their respective image slice, to include the slice with the highest score corresponding to a lesion; wherein one skilled in the art would apply as many results of algorithms to achieve the score needed to be displayed (i.e. the results of the various/multiple algorithms disclosed by Ishii being used to determine a range of scores as disclosed in Figures 6 and 7 of JANG).
PNG
media_image3.png
539
494
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
577
467
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Claim 3
Regarding claim 3, dependent on claim 2, JANG, in view of Ishii, teaches the invention as claimed in claim 2.
JANG further teaches wherein the medical image is a three-dimensional image including a plurality of slice images, a tool for the user to designate one of the slice images is displayed on the screen ("In detail, since 3D tomosynthesis images include a plurality of 3D image slices, a slice number indicating the number of a 3D image slice currently displayed in the screen image 600 from among the plurality of 3D image slices may be displayed in the screen image 600. Also, the lesion score of the corresponding 3D image slice may be displayed together in the screen image 600.", Paragraph [0112]), and
the processing circuitry is further configured to perform display of a slice image together with the screen (Figure 7; "FIG. 7 is a diagram illustrating an example of functions of a slice navigation tool according to an embodiment.", Paragraph [0116]; "The 3D tomosynthesis images include a plurality of 3D image slices, and a slice navigation tool 700 may be used to move to a 3D image slice desired by a user.", Paragraph [0117]),
the slice image being designated by the user with the tool "The second program may perform navigation for 3D tomosynthesis images in the depth-wise direction through the slice navigation tool 700. The second program may display any one 3D image slice from among the plurality of 3D image slices based on a user input to the slice navigation tool 700.", Paragraph [0118].
Claim 4
Regarding claim 4, dependent on claim 1, JANG, in view of Ishii, teaches the invention as claimed in claim 1.
JANG does not explicitly teach wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to cause the terminal to display the screen in the display mode combining the analysis results of algorithms selected by the user among the at least two different AI-based algorithms.
However, Ishii further teaches wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to cause the terminal to display the screen in the display mode combining the analysis results of algorithms selected by the user among the at least two different AI-based algorithms (Rejected as applied to claim 1, specifically Figure 3).
Claim 5
Regarding claim 5, dependent on claim 1, JANG, in view of Ishii, teaches the invention as claimed in claim 1.
JANG, in view of Ishii, further teaches wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to cause the terminal to display the screen representing any of an OR operation result, an AND operation result, and an XOR operation result as the display mode combining the analysis results of the at least two different AI-based algorithms.
Official notice is taken that low-level computer operations largely consist of these Boolean operations (i.e. OR, AND, and XOR operators) that would be executed in order for analysis functions to output a result. Consider https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_x86_instructions (AND, OR, XOR part of original 8086 instruction set). Therefore, to output a result, to a user’s display device in this situation, the AI algorithms would have had to use one or multiple of these operators for the analysis. It 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 to have used machine learning algorithms in which Boolean algebra was used in order for the computer to function properly and output the analysis result like a lesion score or lesion markings, as described in paragraph [0037] of JANG.
Claim 6
Regarding claim 6, dependent on claim 2, JANG, in view of Ishii, teaches the invention as claimed in claim 2.
JANG, in view of Ishii, further teaches wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to cause the terminal to display the screen in the display mode using a color according to a score representing the analysis result of each of the at least two different AI-based algorithms ("The lesion scores and lesions markings (e.g., contour or heatmap) acquired as a result of analyzing the 3D tomosynthesis images may be projected onto a guide image for effective visualization.", Paragraph [0037]), where it is obvious to one skilled in the art that the heat map results correlate to a color representing that respective score, more commonly referred to as a "color-coded grid".
Claim 7
Regarding claim 7, dependent on claim 2, JANG, in view of Ishii, teaches the invention as claimed in claim 2.
JANG, in view of Ishii, further teaches wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to cause the terminal to display the screen in the display mode using a graph in which a body axis direction of a subject and a score representing the analysis result of each of the at least two different AI-based algorithms are associated (Rejected as applied to claim 1, specifically the combination of the applied art using Figure 3 of Ishii in combination with Figures 6 and 7 of JANG), where it would be obvious that the imaging device would be moving in a certain direction when capturing the image slices while having a analysis result with respect to each image. Furthermore, Ishii further describes Figure 3 in Column 8, lines 9 – 20; “For example, when the lesion candidate region is designated by the operator, as indicated in the thumbnail image in FIG. 3, the display control function 154 allows the inside of the square at the position of the designated lesion candidate region to be painted and highlighted for display. Then, the display control function 154 allows analysis information such as the volume, the length of a long axis, the length of a short axis, and the like of the designated lesion candidate region to be displayed next to the thumbnail. Moreover, the display control function 154 allows a medical image related to the designated lesion candidate region to be displayed in the display region R1.”
Claim 8
Regarding claim 8, dependent on claim 2, JANG, in view of Ishii, teaches the invention as claimed in claim 2.
JANG, in view of Ishii, further teaches wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to cause the terminal to display the screen in the display mode using a heat map in which a score representing the analysis result of a first algorithm among the at least two different AI-based algorithms and a score representing the analysis result of a second algorithm among the at least two different AI- based algorithms are associated (Rejected as applied to claim 6), where it would have been obvious to have the results represented by the vertical and horizontal axis of the contour or heat map, for example the lesion score and lesion marking results as disclosed in Paragraph [0037]).
Claim 9
Regarding claim 9, dependent on claim 1, JANG, in view of Ishii, teaches the invention as claimed in claim 1.
JANG, in view of Ishii, further teaches wherein the medical image is a two-dimensional image (Rejected as applied to claim 1, specifically figure 3 of Ishii), and
the processing circuitry is further configured to cause the terminal to display on the screen, a range to which attention needs to be paid in the two-dimensional image, based on the analysis result of each of the at least two different AI-based algorithms (Rejected as applied to claim 1), where it would have been obvious to display the scores pertaining to an analyzed 2D image as the one used in Figure 3 of Ishii.
Claim 10, an independent system claim, is rejected for the same reasons as applied to claim 1.
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 Ronde Miller whose telephone number is (703) 756-5686 The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-4:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor Gregory Morse can be reached on (571) 272-3838. 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.
/RONDE LEE MILLER/Examiner, Art Unit 2663
/GREGORY A MORSE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2698
1 Note that MPEP 2181(I)(a) identifies “circuitry” as normally referring to structure rather than being a means-plus-function limitation. The term is interpreted to have the same meaning as in the Mass. Inst. of Tech. v. Abacus Software cited in that section in lieu of being a means-plus-function limitation. Note that that decision states:
We conclude that Microsoft has not overcome the presumption that the “aesthetic correction circuitry” limitation is not a means-plus-function limitation.
Microsoft urges that “circuitry” should be limited to hardware whereas MIT urged below that it should include both hardware and software. We conclude that the term “aesthetic correction circuitry” is clearly limited to hardware.
Prosecution Insights