DETAILED ACTION
The present application is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This Office Action is in response Applicant communication filed on 8/21/2026.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 8/21/2026 has been entered.
Claims
Claims 1, 15, and 16 have been amended.
Claims 2 and 4 has been cancelled.
Claims 1, 3, and 5-16 are currently pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Objections
The previous objections are withdrawn due to the claim amendments.
103
In Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 15, and 16 have been considered but are moot because new references have been added as necessitated by the applicant’s amendments to the claims.
Rejections under 35 § U.S.C. 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 of this title, 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 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 11075003 B2 (“Sakamoto”) and JP 2019103932 A (“Mori”) and US 20120239431 A1 (“Hayashi”) and US 20090083074 A1 (“Shioe”).
Per claim 15, Sakamoto discloses:
analyzing a creation status of a latest interpretation report for the first medical image by analyzing a content described in the interpretation report to determine at least one of an examination date and time, an examination apparatus name, and an organ name (e.g. In step S305, the described region obtaining unit 110 obtains described regions, which are regions described in the report sentence, based on the region information obtained in step S301 and the report sentence obtained in step S303. In the present embodiment, described regions are obtained by performing keyword matching on the report sentence with anatomical structure names indicated by respective labels of the region information used as keywords. Note that matching may be performed by expanding the keyword using a synonym or ontology. For example, in the example of the report sentence shown in FIG. 5 (the example shown in the report sentence input region 502), “left upper lobe” and “right lower lobe” are obtained as the described regions) (Column 9, Ln 34-46 and Figs. 7 and 8));
analyzing a correspondence relationship between a result analysis of the first medical image for which the interpretation report is to be created and the content described in the interpretation report (e.g. In step S306, the determination unit 112 determines the consistency between the regions of interest obtained in step S303 and the described regions obtained in step S305. In the present embodiment, it is determined whether or not there is information that is included in the regions of interest but not in the described regions. That is, it is determined whether or not there is missing description, that is, there is a region that a medical doctor gazed at but is not included in the report sentence. In the above-described example, “right upper lobe” that is the region of interest is not included in the described region, and thus it is determined that there is missing description) (Column 9, Ln 47-58 and Column 11, Ln 3-17);
collecting status information indicating any of a fist status, a second status, or a third status based on the analysis result of the medical image and the analysis result of the interpretation report… the second status indicating that the latest interpretation report is incomplete (e.g. In step S306, the determination unit 112 determines the consistency between the regions of interest obtained in step S303 and the described regions obtained in step S305. In the present embodiment, it is determined whether or not there is information that is included in the regions of interest but not in the described regions. That is, it is determined whether or not there is missing description, that is, there is a region that a medical doctor gazed at but is not included in the report sentence. In the above-described example, “right upper lobe” that is the region of interest is not included in the described region, and thus it is determined that there is missing description) (Column 9, Ln 47-67 and Column 10, Ln 64 – Column 11, Ln 17);
determining processing according to the status information for the first medical image (e.g. In step S307, the presenting information creation unit 114 creates presenting information based on the result determined in step S306. In the present embodiment, a message box is created as the presenting information. In the above-described example, since “right upper lobe” is not included in the described region, a message box notifying the fact is created. Then, in step S308, the presenting information creation unit 114 displays the created message box in the monitor 1005) (Column 9, Ln 47 – Column 10, Ln 14 and Column 11, Ln 17-37 and Column 11, Ln 38-45 and Figs. 7 and 8).
wherein in a case where the status information of the first medical image indicates the first status or the second status, executing processing of providing notification of a confirmation of whether to close the first medical image, as the processing according to the status information (e.g. In step S307, the presenting information creation unit 114 creates presenting information based on the result determined in step S306. In the present embodiment, a message box is created as the presenting information. In the above-described example, since “right upper lobe” is not included in the described region, a message box notifying the fact is created. Then, in step S308, the presenting information creation unit 114 displays the created message box in the monitor 1005) and (FIG. 7 shows an example of the presenting information displayed on the monitor 1005 according to the present embodiment. The presenting information is displayed in the form of a message box 704. Here, when the “YES” button in the message box 704 is pressed down, the report sentence can be corrected (re-input). That is, it is determined that a correction instruction is input in step S309, and the procedure returns to step S302 and it is possible to perform creation (editing) of the report sentence by the report creation unit 101. On the other hand, when the “NO” button is pressed down, the procedure advances to step S310, where the report creation unit 101 stores the report sentence in the magnetic disk 1003 or the like, and ends the report creation assistance processing) (Column 10, Ln 59 – Column 11, Ln 14 and Column 11, Ln 18-27 and Figs. 7 and 8);
in a case where the status information of the first medical image indicates the third status, executing processing of closing the first medical image without performing processing of providing notification of a confirmation of whether to close the first medical image, as the processing according to the status information (e.g. Note that if, in step S306, the determination of consistency is successful (if it is determined that there is no missing description), for example, a message box indicating that fact may be created and displayed, and the user may be asked whether or not to continue creating the report sentence. Alternatively, if it is determined that there is no missing description, a configuration is also possible in which the report sentence is stored and the report creation ends, as with the above-described case where the “NO” button is pressed down) (Column 10, Ln 1-24 and Column 11, Ln 37-45).
Note: When analyzing the claimed method as a whole, the PTAB determined that giving the claim its broadest reasonable interpretation, "if the condition for performing a contingent step is not satisfied, the performance recited by the step need not be carried out in order for the claimed method to be performed". Therefore the Examiner did not need to present evidence of the obviousness of the method steps of the claim that are not required to be performed under a broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim (See Ex Parte Schulhauser and MPEP 2111.04 II). Here The limitations “wherein in a case where the status information of the first medical image indicates the first status or the second status, executing processing of providing notification of a confirmation of whether to close the first medical image, as the processing according to the status information” and “in a case where the status information of the first medical image indicates the third status, executing processing of closing the first medical image without performing processing of providing notification of a confirmation of whether to close the first medical image, as the processing according to the status information” represents optional language since the status information can indicate either a first, second or third status. Therefore the prior art teaches the element if one of the alternatives is taught by the prior art.
Although Sakamoto discloses analyzing a medical image and an interpretation report to determine whether the interpretation report is missing anything essential from the medical image and then determining whether to display a prompt to the user based on the determination when the user clicks a button to end the interpretation report input, Sakamoto does not specifically disclose:
receiving a close instruction for one or more medical images displayed on a display device;
analyzing a first medical image that is a target of the instruction to determine generated date and time of the first medical image, an examination apparatus used to generate the first medical image, and a region-of-interest included in the first medical image;
…the first status being a status according to the creation status of the latest interpretation report for a first medical image that is a target of the instruction and indicating that the latest interpretation report has been created… the third status corresponding to neither the first status nor the second status;
determining whether or not the generated date and time of the first medical image matches a date and time of a latest examination;
in a case where the generated date and time of the first medical image does not match the date and time of the latest examination, determining whether or not the first medical image is an interpretation target base don whether a description regarding a comparative image is present in the latest interpretation report;
in a case where the first medical image is not the interpretation target, collecting the status information indicating the third status.
However Mori, in analogous art of medical image processing, discloses:
analyzing a first medical image that is a target of the instruction to determine generated data and time of the first medical image, an examination apparatus used to generate the first medical image, and a region-of-interest included in the first medical image (e.g. A plurality of medical images (data) and incidental information of the medical images are stored in an external medium (hereinafter simply referred to as an external medium) connected to the ultrasonic diagnostic apparatus 10. Further, in incidental information of a medical image, an ID or name for identifying a subject (patient) in which the medical image is imaged, an imaging date (examination date) in which the medical image is imaged, and the medical image The acquired imaging region of the subject, the type (modality) of the medical image diagnostic apparatus that has captured the medical image, the model name of the medical image diagnostic apparatus, and the like are included) (Section [0037]);
determining whether or not the generated date and time of the first medical image matches a date and time of a latest examination; in a case where the generated date and time of the first medical image does not match the date and time of the latest examination, determining whether or not the first medical image is an interpretation target based on whether a description regarding a comparative image is present in the latest interpretation report; in a case where the first medical image is not the interpretation target, collecting the status information indicating the third status (e.g. If the medical image matches the examination date, the medical image is determined as a candidate of another modality image to be displayed simultaneously with the ultrasound image, and the operator is configured to preferentially display data representing the determined medical image) (Section [0110]).
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 medical image reporting of Sakamoto to include capturing the date and time of the medical images and comparing them to the date and time of a medical examination, as taught by Mori, in order to achieve the predictable result of providing convenience to the user by allowing them to know which medical images are relevant to a patient examination.
Note: When analyzing the claimed method as a whole, the PTAB determined that giving the claim its broadest reasonable interpretation, "if the condition for performing a contingent step is not satisfied, the performance recited by the step need not be carried out in order for the claimed method to be performed". Therefore the Examiner did not need to present evidence of the obviousness of the method steps of the claim that are not required to be performed under a broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim (See Ex Parte Schulhauser and MPEP 2111.04 II). Here The limitations “in a case where the generated date and time of the first medical image does not match the date and time of the latest examination, determining whether or not the first medical image is an interpretation target based on whether a description regarding a comparative image is present in the latest interpretation report” and “in a case where the first medical image is not the interpretation target, collecting the status information indicating the third status” represents optional language since the generated date and time of the first medical image may match the date and time of the latest examination. Further, the first medical image may be determined to be an interpretation target. Therefore the prior art teaches the element if one of the alternatives is taught by the prior art.
Although Sakamoto/Mori discloses analyzing a medical image and an interpretation report to determine whether the interpretation report is missing anything essential from the medical image and then determining whether to display a prompt to the user based on the determination when the user clicks a button to end the interpretation report input, Sakamoto does not specifically disclose:
receiving a close instruction for one or more medical images displayed on a display device;
…the first status being a status according to the creation status of the latest interpretation report for a first medical image that is a target of the instruction and indicating that the latest interpretation report has been created… the third status corresponding to neither the first status nor the second status;
However Hayashi, in analogous art of medical image interpretation, discloses:
receiving a close instruction for one or more medical images displayed on a display device (e.g. When quitting of the display of the image for the selected examination is instructed through the operation unit 22 (YES in Step S17), the RAM 25 and the specific-operation authorization-extension file 164 are referred to confirm the operation that has been performed (Step S18). The quitting of the display of an examination may be instructed, for example, by operation of searching for next examination from the examination list, closing the displayed viewer screen, or clicking the "quit interpretation" button appearing on the viewer screen) (Section [0073]-[0077]).
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 image viewer user interface of Sakamoto/Mori to include the use of a close document interaction, as taught by Hayashi, in order to achieve the predictable result of providing convenience to the user by allowing them to close an image or move onto the next image when they are done.
Although Sakamoto/Mori/Hayashi discloses receiving an instruction to close one or more medical images and determining processing according to the status information of a medical image when a user closes them, Sakamoto/Mori/Hayashi does not specifically disclose:
…the first status being a status according to the creation status of the latest interpretation report for a first medical image that is a target of the instruction and indicating that the latest interpretation report has been created… the third status corresponding to neither the first status nor the second status.
However Shioe, in analogous art of medical image interpretation, discloses:
…the first status being a status according to the creation status of the latest interpretation report for a first medical image that is a target of the instruction and indicating that the latest interpretation report has been created… the third status corresponding to neither the first status nor the second status (e.g. The status information for the inspection request has three status; one where neither the inspection nor the image interpretation has been yet done, one where only the image interpretation has not been done yet and one where both the inspection and image interpretation have been already completed. The status item in the inspection request list 60 is displayed based on the status information. The status of the status information and one displayed in the inspection request list 60 are, however, not limited to the above-mentioned three) (Section [0059], [0070], [0071], and Fig. 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the medical image interpretation method of Sakamoto/Mori/Hayashi to include the use of 3 different medical image statuses, as taught by Shioe, in order to achieve the predictable result of providing convenience to the user by allowing them to easily identify which medical images still need to be interpreted.
Novel/Non-obvious Subject Matter
Claims 1, 3, 5-14, and 16 are allowable.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance over the prior art:
The instant claims include: receive an instruction to close one or more medical images displayed on a display device; analyze a first medical image that is a target of the instruction to determine generated date and time of the first medical image, an examination apparatus used to generate the first medical image, and a region-of-interest included in the first medical image; analyze a creation status of a latest interpretation report for the first medical image by analyzing a content described in the interpretation report to determine at least one of an examination date and time, an examination apparatus name, and an organ name; analyze a correspondence relationship between a result analysis of the first medical image for which the interpretation report is to be created and the content described in the interpretation report; collect status information indicating any of a first status, a second status, or a third status based on the analysis result of the medical image and the analysis result of the interpretation report, the first status being a status according to the creation status of the latest interpretation report for a first medical image that is a target of the instruction and indicating that the latest interpretation report has been created, the second status indicating that the latest interpretation report is incomplete, the third status corresponding to neither the first status nor the second status, wherein collecting the status information includes: determining whether or not the generated date and time of the first medical image matches a date and time of the latest examination, in a case where the generated date and time of the first medical image does not match the date and time of the latest examination, determining whether or not the first medical image is an interpretation target based on whether a description regarding a comparative image is present int eh latest interpretation report, and in a case where the first medical image is not the interpretation target, collecting the status information indicating the third status; determine processing according to the status information for the first medical image; wherein in a case where the status information of the first medical image indicates the first status or the second status, execute processing of providing notification of a confirmation of whether to close the first medical image, as the processing according to the status information; in a case where the status information of the first medical image indicates the third status, execute processing of closing the first medical image without performing processing of providing notification of a confirmation of whether to close the first medical image, as the processing according to the status information.
US 11075003 B2 to Sakamoto teaches an interpretation report creator/assistant that scans the medical images and compares it to the report currently being edited to make sure that everything has been captured in the report. If it detects that the report has missing important pieces then it will provide a popup which tells the doctor that there are incomplete sections and if they click yes/no then it will allow them to continue editing or close out the report. If it detects that there are no missing elements then it will just close the document without the popup. Sakamoto. JP 2019103932 A to Mori teaches a system and method that processes medical images and determines the date and time of the medical image, the apparatus used to create the medical image, and the imaging region of the subject. Mori further discloses that the date and time of the medical image is compared to the date and time of the examination to determine whether the medical image is relevant to the examination. US 20090083074 A1 to Shioe teaches a system and method that generates medical image interpretation reports and can assign 3 different statuses to the interpretation report. US 20120239431 A1 to Hayashi teaches a medical information management system that allows the user to close out medical images that are displayed.
The cited references, alone or in combination, do not teach the specific technique of: in a case where the generated date and time of the first medical image does not match the date and time of the latest examination, determining whether or not the first medical image is an interpretation target based on whether a description regarding a comparative image is present int eh latest interpretation report, and in a case where the first medical image is not the interpretation target, collecting the status information indicating the third status; in combination with the rest of the limitations.
Note: the reason that claim 15 is not allowable is because it is a method claim that does not require the allowable subject matter of claims 1 and 16 because the allowable subject matter of claims 1 and 16 is optional language which may never happen in the method of claim 15. This is explained above with reference to Ex Parte Schulhauser. In Schulhauser, both method claims and system claims recited the same contingent step. When analyzing the claimed method as a whole, the PTAB determined that giving the claim its broadest reasonable interpretation, "if the condition for performing a contingent step is not satisfied, the performance recited by the step need not be carried out in order for the claimed method to be performed". When analyzing the claimed system as a whole, the PTAB determined that "the broadest reasonable interpretation of a system claim having structure that performs a function, which only needs to occur if a condition precedent is met, still requires structure for performing the function should the condition occur." Therefore "the Examiner did not need to present evidence of the obviousness of the method steps of claim 1 that are not required to be performed under a broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim (e.g., instances in which the electrocardiac signal data is not within the threshold electrocardiac criteria such that the condition precedent for the determining step and the remaining steps of claim 1 has not been met);" however to render the claimed system obvious, the prior art must teach the structure that performs the function of the contingent step along with the other recited claim limitations (See Ex parte Schulhauser and MPEP 2111.04 II).
The examiner invites the applicant to reach out to discuss amendments to claim 15 to put it into condition for allowance.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIMOTHY P SAX whose telephone number is (571) 272-2935. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8-4:30.
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, Patrick McAtee can be reached at (571) 272-7575. 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.
/TIMOTHY PAUL SAX/Examiner, Art Unit 3698
