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 .
DETAILED ACTION
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 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, 2, 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Manami Hikosaka (US 20210280300), hereinafter ‘Hikosaka’ in view of HIDEYUKI Ban et al. (WO 2012169344), hereinafter ‘Ban’.
With regards to Claim 1, Hikosaka discloses
A radiography apparatus (Fig.1) comprising:
a processor; and a memory having instructions stored thereon which, when executed by the processor (Embodiment(s) of the present invention can also be realized by a computer of a system or apparatus that reads out and executes computer executable instructions (e.g., one or more programs) recorded on a storage medium … The computer may comprise one or more processors (e.g., central processing unit (CPU), micro processing unit (MPU)) and may include a network of separate computers or separate processors to read out and execute the computer executable instructions … The storage medium may include, for example, one or more of a hard disk, a random-access memory (RAM), a read only memory (ROM), a storage of distributed computing systems, an optical disk (such as a compact disc (CD), digital versatile disc (DVD), or Blu-ray Disc (BD)™), a flash memory device, a memory card, and the like [0137]), cause the radiography apparatus to:
acquire a radiographic image by photographing a subject (a radiation generation apparatus 13, a radiation detection apparatus 15, subject H, Fig.1; [0033]);
perform image processing on the radiographic image (medical information processing apparatus 10 and/or 20, Fig. 1; [0033]); and
output a radiographic image having been subjected to the image processing and image processing information regarding the image processing in association with each other (the medical information processing apparatus 10 adds a key object, which is related information about the radiological image, and the like to a radiological image obtained by image capturing, and outputs the radiological image to the PACS 60 [0035]; the medical image (radiological image) and the related information (key object) about the medical image are output to the PACS 60 and the like from the medical information processing apparatus 10, and the output medical image and related information are stored in association with each other in the PACS 60 or the like. The above-described example illustrates a case where the medical image and the related information generated by the medical information processing apparatus 10 are stored in the PACS 60 or the like. However, the present invention is not limited to this mode. For example, the medical image (radiological image) and the related information (key object) may be output from the other medical information processing apparatus 20 having a functional configuration similar to that of the medical information processing apparatus 10, and the output medical image and related information may be stored in association with each other in the PACS 60 or the like. [0075]),
However, Hikosaka is silent on
image processing of identical content is performed on a plurality of radiographic images, and
the image processing information further includes information indicating that image processing of identical content has been performed on the plurality of radiographic images in a batch manner.
Ban discloses that image processing of identical content is performed on a plurality of images, and the image processing information further includes information indicating that image processing of identical content has been performed on the plurality of images in a batch manner (image diagnosis by use of registration among a plurality of images, Abstract; there are many cases where the modality and the photographing method are basically the same, p.5; an image diagnosis support system capable of optimizing the registration processing parameter set (PS) used in the above-described embodiments among a plurality of hospitals will be described. In the present embodiment, the setting status of processing parameters in a plurality of hospitals is collected and managed, and a database (DB) having appropriate parameters based on various examination devices and imaging techniques is constructed at the service center … the hospital B can perform registration processing between the image captured by the device A of the hospital B 1302 and the image captured by the device B of the hospital A 1301 using the received PSa … As described above, according to the present embodiment, the batch processing of the parameter set in the service center makes it possible to apply the optimum processing parameters to the images taken at other hospitals, p.10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hikosaka in view of Ban to perform image processing of identical content on the plurality of radiographic images that use same/similar processing settings via batch processing as known in the art for its benefits (It is possible to perform parameter optimization, and even when using images taken at other hospitals, it is possible to perform registration between images in a shorter time, more accurately, and more easily, Ban, p.10).
With regards to Claim 2, Hikosaka additionally discloses wherein the image processing information includes a type of the image processing (clipping … designate a desired clip area [0062]) and a parameter value (the image capturing control unit 112 of the medical information processing apparatus 10 transmits image capturing conditions (tube voltage or tube current of the radiation generation apparatus 13, a radiation irradiation time, etc.) set corresponding to the image capturing method button (image capturing method) to the radiation generation control unit 113 [0059]; adding a character string as diagnosis information [0062]) used in the image processing.
With regards to Claim 7, Hikosaka additionally discloses wherein the image processing information is expressed by a character string (In a case of adding a character string as diagnosis information, the operator operates the annotation button 424 or the like to superimpose a character string indicated by an annotation 412 on the radiological image [0062]).
With regards to Claim 8, Hikosaka additionally discloses wherein test information is output, the test information including the image processing information and a photographic condition used for photographing of the subject in association with a radiographic image having been subjected to the image processing (the image capturing control unit 112 of the medical information processing apparatus 10 transmits image capturing conditions (tube voltage or tube current of the radiation generation apparatus 13, a radiation irradiation time, etc.) set corresponding to the image capturing method button (image capturing method) to the radiation generation control unit 113 [0059]; the radiographic image capturing control apparatus 11 displays the new examination input screen 200 illustrated in FIGS. 2A and 2B again on the display unit 115. In this operation, the radiographic image capturing control apparatus 11 adds additional information, such as examination information about a radiological image that is a retake target and is not used, and image capturing conditions, to the radiological image in the image capturing control unit 112, and the radiological image is output to, for example, the PACS 60 [0063]; an image capturing information display area 750, [0079]).
With regards to Claim 9, Hikosaka additionally discloses a non-transitory storage medium that stores a program for causing a computer to function as the radiography apparatus (Embodiment(s) of the present invention can also be realized by a computer of a system or apparatus that reads out and executes computer executable instructions (e.g., one or more programs) recorded on a storage medium (which may also be referred to more fully as a ‘non-transitory computer-readable storage medium’) to perform the functions of one or more of the above-described embodiment(s) [0137]).
With regards to Claim 10, Hikosaka in view of Ban discloses the invention as discussed in Claim 1.
Claims 3 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hikosaka in view of Ban, and further in view of HIDEYUKI Ban et al. (WO 2012169344)
With regards to Claim 3, Hikosaka does not specifically disclose wherein the image processing information includes a date on which the image processing is performed.
Fukazu discloses wherein the image processing information includes a date on which the image processing is performed (the imaged date and the imaging conditions [0027]; [0062]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hikosaka in view of Ban, and Fukazu to include a date on which the image processing is performed to document imaging condition and corresponding processing conditions for the patient/equipment record.
With regards to Claim 6, Hikosaka does not specifically disclose wherein the image processing information includes information for specifying individual radiographic images from the plurality of radiographic images.
Fukazu discloses specifying individual radiographic images from the plurality of radiographic images (The imaging data 1122 includes data of images taken by the radiographic-image taking apparatus 150 and auxiliary information data that is associated with the data of taken images. The auxiliary information data includes, for example, an examination ID, a patient ID, the name, the age, and the sex of the patient, the imaged date, and the imaging conditions [0027]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hikosaka in view of Ban, and Fukazu to specify individual radiographic images from the plurality of radiographic images to distinguish patient conditions and corresponding diagnoses/treatment options.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hikosaka in view of Ban, and further in view of John Squilla et al. (US 20090182577), hereinafter ‘Squilla’.
With regards to Claim 4, Hikosaka does not specifically disclose wherein the image processing information includes information indicating a laboratory in which the image processing has been performed.
Squilla discloses information indicating a facility/laboratory in which medical procedure/corresponding processing has been performed (The collected content can originate from a variety of heterogeneous sources such as, for example, different healthcare facilities, different physicians, different medical laboratories [0018]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hikosaka in view of Ban, and Toshimitsu to include information indicating a laboratory in which the image processing has been performed to track a particular facility where the processing of medical information was performed (The content collection devices 16 can also include systems or devices configured to retrievably store and/or archive captured content from, for example, medical records, lab testing systems, Squilla [0029]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Akihiro TOSHIMITSU et al. (US 20070058784) discloses a radiograph-interpretation supporting apparatus that supports radiograph-interpretation by facilitating the handling of an electronic radiograph-interpretation report, to a method of transmitting and receiving radiograph-interpretation report data, and to a radiograph-interpretation supporting program.
Mikihiko Kamekawa (US 20200021697), hereinafter ‘Kamekawa’ discloses processing images of identical content in a batch manner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER SATANOVSKY whose telephone number is (571)270-5819. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F: 9 am-5 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Catherine Rastovski can be reached on (571) 270-0349. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ALEXANDER SATANOVSKY/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights