Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed March 11, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1,
applicant states that “Shinagawa obtains the second medical image according to the slice thickness (interpreted as the claimed image condition by the Office) in the resampling process, i.e., downstream post-processing. Shinagawa uses the past images only for alignment, i.e., matching slices, matching lesions, and comparing sizes over time. The slice thickness is just considered in the resampling process, i.e., post-processing after comparing images to obtain new second medical image data set.”. Examiner disagrees with this statement. Shinagawa teaches each medical image data set or image study may comprise a plurality of (predefined) images or image slices ([0044]). In other words, the slice thickness is predefined and not just considered in the resampling process or post-processing.
applicant states that “Additionally, the similarity taught by Shinagawa refers to the similarity between the medical images, rather than the similarity between the image conditions as claimed.”. Examiner disagrees with this statement. Shinagawa teaches “a medical image study may include a series of parallel image slices spanning an anatomic region of a patient. The thickness of the slices varies with the imaging modality and is typically 1-5 mm. [0003]). In other words, Shinagawa suggests the slice thickness as an image condition and the similarity between image slices can be the similarity between the slice thicknesses, i.e., the image conditions.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 1-6, 8, and 10-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hiroshi (Japan Patent Pub. No.: JP2002-063563A), hereinafter Hiroshi, in view of Shinagawa (US Patent Pub. No.: US 2022/0414883 A1), hereinafter Shinagawa.
Regarding claim 1, Hiroshi teaches an image processing device comprising: one or more processors (It is common knowledge that a processor is a necessary component in conventional computer systems such as an image processing system in Hiroshi, Abstract.); and one or more memories that store a command to be executed by the one or more processors (It is common knowledge that a memory is a necessary component in conventional computer systems of an image processing system in Hiroshi.), wherein the one or more processors are configured to: receive first images that are generated by imaging a subject (Figure 2 is a diagram showing chest radiographic images P1 and P2 taken at different times for a specific patient, which are the subject of processing by the image processing system shown in Figure 1. The radiation image P1 is an image captured at an earlier time than P2, and hereinafter, P1 will be referred to as the past image and P2 as the current image. [0029]); designate a first region of interest in the plurality of first images (Here, the region of interest R2 in the current image P2 to which image processing is applied is set by an external region of interest setting means 20, which is a means for an image reader, such as a doctor, who has observed and interpreted the overall images P1 and P2 initially displayed on the CRT 1, to set as the region of interest R2 the region of interest in the current image P2. [0031]); acquire, for a plurality of second images that are generated by imaging the subject before capturing the first image (Figure 2 is a diagram showing chest radiographic images P1 and P2 taken at different times for a specific patient, which are the subject of processing by the image processing system shown in Figure 1. The radiation image P1 is an image captured at an earlier time than P2, and hereinafter, P1 will be referred to as the past image and P2 as the current image. [0029]), measurement information (As the region of interest processing means, it is preferable to use, as the specified processing, a process for quantifying a specified physical quantity in the region of interest, a process for applying image processing for emphasizing or extracting a specified feature in the region of interest, or a measurement process for measuring a specified image feature in the region of interest. [0023]) on the second image having a second region of interest ((corresponding region of interest) R1 in the other image (e.g., past image P1) [0030]) corresponding to the first region of interest (The image processing system 10 shown in the figure is configured to include a corresponding region of interest setting means 1 that determines a corresponding portion (corresponding region of interest) R1 in the other image (e.g., past image P1) that is approximately identical to the region of interest R2 in one of the above-mentioned past image P1 and current image P2 (e.g., current image P2) that is the subject of comparative reading. [0030]); and measure the first region of interest in the specified first image (As the region of interest processing means, it is preferable to use, as the specified processing, a process for quantifying a specified physical quantity in the region of interest, a process for applying image processing for emphasizing or extracting a specified feature in the region of interest, or a measurement process for measuring a specified image feature in the region of interest. [0023]).
Hiroshi does not teach the following limitations as further recited, but Shinagawa further teaches receive a plurality of first images that are generated by imaging a subject (According to at least one example embodiment, a computer-implemented method includes receiving a first medical image data set [0007]) and to which each of a plurality of first image conditions different from each other is applied (Each medical image data set or image study may comprise a plurality of (predefined) images or image slices. [0044]. A person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize the images received may have different slice thicknesses.); specify the first image included in a range of the measurement information from the plurality of first images (According to at least one example embodiment, a computer-implemented method includes receiving a first medical image data set; receiving a second medical image data set, the second medical image data set being different from the first medical image data set; and identifying, from a plurality of slices comprised in the second medical image data set, at least one corresponding slice based on degrees of similarity between image data comprised in the first medical image data set and individual slices of the second medical image data set. [0007]) based on a similarity indicator representing a similarity between the plurality of first image conditions and a second image condition of the second image (According to some examples, the first medical image data set comprises a plurality of (image) slices, and the step of identifying the at least one corresponding slice may then comprise identifying for each of a plurality of slices of the first medical image data set one corresponding slice (e.g., having the same slice thickness, or in other words, image condition) of the second medical image data set, the degrees of similarity being respectively based on a similarity between an individual slice of the first medical image data set and an individual slice of the second medical image data set. [0059]); wherein the first image condition and the second image condition comprise at least one of a reconstruction condition, a slice thickness representing a thickness (A medical image study may include a series of parallel image slices spanning an anatomic region of a patient. The thickness of the slices varies with the imaging modality and is typically 1-5 mm. [0003]. In other words, the slice thickness can be one of the image conditions.) of a tomographic layer (A medical image study may include a series of parallel image slices spanning an anatomic region of a patient. [0003]) in a tomographic image (Further, the medical image system may comprise one or more medical imaging modalities, such as a computed tomography system, a magnetic resonance system, an angiography (or C-arm X-ray) system, a positron-emission tomography system, a mammography system, system for acquiring digital pathology images or the like. [0115]]), a spatial resolution, or an imaging protocol (The claim language is interpreted as disjunctive.).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hiroshi to incorporate the teachings of Shinagawa to receive a plurality of first images with different image conditions applied and specify the first image included in a range of the measurement information from the plurality of first images based on a similarity indicator between the first image conditions and a second image condition of the second image using a tomographic layer slice thickness as the first image condition and the second image condition in order to identify corresponding slices in different medical image series.
Regarding claim 2, Shinagawa in the combination teaches the image processing device according to claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are configured to specify the first image having the first image condition (Each medical image data set or image study may comprise a plurality of (predefined) images or image slices. [0044]. A medical image study may include a series of parallel image slices spanning an anatomic region of a patient. The thickness of the slices varies with the imaging modality and is typically 1-5 mm. [0003]. In other words, the slice thickness can be one of the image conditions.) in which [[a]]the similarity indicator representing [[a]]the similarity to [[a]]the second image condition of the second image is a maximum (Alternatively, the slice with the highest similarity may be selected. The result of determining a similarity metric between two images may be a degree of similarity between the images (e.g., the slice thickness of an image). [0048]), as the first image (determining which one of the first and second candidate images has a higher degree of similarity to the reference image. [0017]) included in the range of the measurement information (Sub-unit 24 is a measurement module or unit. It is configured to use the information about corresponding slices provided by sub-unit 22 to perform comparative measurements on image features comprised in two or more medical image data sets MIDS-1, MIDS-2 (which have been "synchronized" by way of the identified slice correspondence CS). [0136]).
Regarding claim 3, Shinagawa in the combination teaches the image processing device according to claim 2, wherein the one or more processors are configured to derive the similarity indicator (According to at least one example embodiment, the method further includes extracting at least one image descriptor from image data of the first medical image data set; and respectively extracting a corresponding image descriptor from each of a plurality of slices of the second medical image data set, wherein the degrees of similarity are respectively based on a comparison between the extracted at least one image descriptor of the first medical image data set and the corresponding image description of the second medical image data set. [0011]) using at least any one of [[a]]the reconstruction condition, [[a]]the slice thickness representing [[a]]the thickness (A medical image study may include a series of parallel image slices spanning an anatomic region of a patient. The thickness of the slices varies with the imaging modality and is typically 1-5 mm. [0003]. In other words, the slice thickness can be one of the image conditions.) of a tomographic layer (A medical image study may include a series of parallel image slices spanning an anatomic region of a patient. [0003]) in [[a]]the tomographic image (Further, the medical image system may comprise one or more medical imaging modalities, such as a computed tomography system, a magnetic resonance system, an angiography (or C-arm X-ray) system, a positron-emission tomography system, a mammography system, system for acquiring digital pathology images or the like. [0115]]), [[a]]the spatial resolution, or [[an]]the imaging protocol (The claim language is interpreted as disjunctive.).
Claims 4-6, 8 and 10-15, unamended and are rejected based on the combination of Hiroshi, in view of Shinagawa. The grounds of rejection established in the last Office Action is fully incorporated herein.
Method claim 16 is drawn to the method of using the corresponding apparatus claimed in claim 1. Therefore method claim 16 corresponds to apparatus claim 1 and is rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as used above.
Claim 17 is drawn to a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having executable instructions stored for executing the method of using the corresponding apparatus as claimed in claim 1. Therefore, claim 17 corresponds to apparatus claim 1, and is rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as used above.
Claim 7, unamended and is rejected based on the combination of Hiroshi (Japan Patent Pub. No.: JP2002-063563A), hereinafter Hiroshi, in view of Shinagawa (US Patent Pub. No.: US 2022/0414883 A1), hereinafter Shinagawa, further in view of Endo (Chinese Patent Pub. No.: CN 106887017 A), hereinafter Endo. The ground of rejection established in the last Office Action is fully incorporated herein.
Claim 9, unamended and is rejected based on the combination of Hiroshi (Japan Patent Pub. No.: JP2002-063563A), hereinafter Hiroshi, in view of Shinagawa (US Patent Pub. No.: US 2022/0414883 A1), hereinafter Shinagawa, further in view of Lai (An adaptive window width/center adjustment system with online training capabilities for MR images, Artificial Intelligence in Medicine (2005) 33, 89—101), hereinafter Lai. The ground of rejection established in the last Office Action is fully incorporated herein.
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 LEI ZHAO whose telephone number is (703)756-1922. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am - 5:00 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, VU LE can be reached at (571)272-7332. 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.
/LEI ZHAO/Examiner, Art Unit 2668
/VU LE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2668
Prosecution Insights