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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-16 are currently pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1
Claims 1-16 are within the four statutory categories. Claims 1-14 are drawn to a device for image diagnosis, which is within the four statutory categories (i.e. machine). Claim 15 is drawn to a method for image diagnosis, which is within the four statutory categories (i.e. process). Claim 16 is drawn to a non-transitory medium for image diagnosis, which is within the four statutory categories (i.e. manufacture).
Prong 1 of Step 2A
Claim 1, which is representative of the inventive concept, recites: An image diagnosis assisting device comprising:
one or more processors; and
one or more memories in which instructions to be executed by the one or more processors are stored,
wherein the one or more processors are configured to:
acquire a current medical image generated by imaging an organ of a subject in a latest examination, wherein the current medical image includes an abnormal region, the abnormal region includes a lesion that has been reduced in size or has become invisible;
acquire treatment information regarding a treatment of the subject, wherein
the treatment information includes at least one of a past treatment location of the subject or a latest examination of the subject, the past treatment location of the subject or the latest examination of the subject includes a past image of the organ, the past image of the organ includes a past abnormal region, and
the abnormal region in the current medical image corresponding to a same location of the organ as the past abnormal region in the past image;
generate treatment progress information regarding a past treatment location in the subject based on the treatment information, wherein the treatment progress information visually corresponds between the abnormal region and the past abnormal region so as for the lesion in the abnormal region to be recognizable by indicating the abnormal region with a bounding box which is disposed at a position of the current medical image corresponding to the abnormal region in the past image and has a centroid position in the current image that matches a centroid position of the abnormal position in the past image; and
perform control to display the treatment progress information on a screen on which the first medical image is displayed.
The underlined limitations as shown above, given the broadest reasonable interpretation, cover the abstract idea of a certain method of organizing human activity because they recite managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (i.e. social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions – in this case, the steps of acquiring a medical image and treatment information, and generating treatment progress information based on the treatment information are reasonably interpreted as following rules or instructions to determine treatment progress information), e.g. see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2). Any limitations not identified above as part of the abstract idea are deemed “additional elements,” and will be discussed in further detail below.
Furthermore, the abstract idea for Claims 15 and 16 is identical as the abstract idea for Claim 1, because the only difference between Claims 1, 15, and 16 is that Claim 1 recites a device, whereas Claim 15 recites a method, and Claim 16 recites a non-transitory computer tangible medium.
Dependent Claims 2-14 include other limitations, for example Claim 2-3 recite acquiring data regarding the past treatment location, Claims 4-5 recite acquiring the latest examination data for the patient, Claim 6 recites acquiring various types of data, Claim 7 recites that the current image includes a first anatomical structure, Claim 8 recites determining a position of a reconstructed image, Claim 9 recites performing segmenting or labeling of an anatomical structure to specify the past treatment location, Claim 10 recites performing segmentation or labeling to determine a past treatment location in the second image, Claims 11-12 recite generating a trimmed image based on the past treatment location, Claim 13 recites performing the process recited in Claim 1 but for a second anatomical structure different from a first anatomical structure, and Claim 14 recites determining a plurality of pieces of progress information and displaying the pieces of progress information in a different display mode, but these only serve to further narrow the abstract idea, and a claim may not preempt abstract ideas, even if the judicial exception is narrow, e.g. see MPEP 2106.04, and/or do not further narrow the abstract idea and instead only recite additional elements, which will be further addressed below. Hence dependent Claims 2-14 are nonetheless directed towards fundamentally the same abstract idea as independent Claim 1.
Hence Claims 1-16 are directed towards the aforementioned abstract idea.
Prong 2 of Step 2A
Claims 1 and 15-16 are not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements (i.e. the non-underlined limitations above – in this case, the processors, the memories, and the step of displaying the treatment progress information) amount to no more than limitations which:
amount to mere instructions to apply an exception – for example, the recitation of the processors and memories, which amounts to merely invoking a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea, e.g. see [0091]-[0094] of the as-filed Specification, and see MPEP 2106.05(f);
generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use – for example, the claim language of the image being a medical image and the information being treatment and progress information, which amounts to limiting the abstract idea to the field of healthcare, e.g. see MPEP 2106.05(h); and/or
add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea – for example, the recitation of the treatment progress information corresponding to a bounding box and displaying the treatment progress information on a screen on which the medical image is displayed, which amounts to selecting a particular data type of data to be manipulated, and/or an insignificant application, e.g. see MPEP 2106.05(g).
Additionally, dependent Claims 2-14 include other limitations, but these limitations also amount to generally linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use (e.g. the types of data recited in dependent Claims 2-6 and 13-14), and/or adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea (e.g. the construction of the various displays recited in dependent Claims 7-12), and/or do not include any additional elements beyond those already recited in independent Claim 1, and hence also do not integrate the aforementioned abstract idea into a practical application.
Hence Claims 1-16 do not include additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B
Claims 1 and 15-16 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to “significantly more” than the judicial exception because the additional elements (i.e. the non-underlined limitations above – in this case, the processors, the memories, and the step of displaying the treatment progress information), as stated above, are directed towards no more than limitations that amount to mere instructions to apply the exception, generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, and/or add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea, wherein the additional elements comprise limitations which:
amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields, as demonstrated by:
The present Specification expressly disclosing that the additional elements are well-understood, routine, and conventional in nature:
[0091]-[0094] of the as-filed Specification discloses that the additional elements (i.e. the processors and the memories) comprise a plurality of different types of generic computing systems that are configured to perform generic computer functions (i.e. acquiring data, generating data based on the acquired data) that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry (i.e. healthcare);
Relevant court decisions: The following are examples of court decisions demonstrating well-understood, routine and conventional activities, e.g. see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II):
Electronic recordkeeping, e.g. see Alice Corp v. CLS Bank – similarly, the current invention merely recites the creating and maintaining of medical image and treatment data;
Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g. see Intellectual Ventures v. Symantec – similarly, the current invention receives imaging and treatment data over a network, for example the Internet, e.g. see [0060]-[0062] of the as-filed Specification;
Electronic recordkeeping, e.g. see Alice Corp v. CLS Bank – similarly, the current invention merely recites the creating and maintaining of treatment progression data together with the medical image;
Storing and retrieving information in memory, e.g. see Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc. – similarly, the current invention recites storing medical image and treatment data in a database and/or electronic memory, and retrieving the medical image and treatment data from storage in order to determine treatment progression data to be displayed with the medical image;
Dependent Claims 2-14 include other limitations, but none of these limitations are deemed significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional elements recited in the aforementioned dependent claims similarly amount to (e.g. the types of data recited in dependent Claims 2-6 and 13-14), and/or adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea (e.g. the construction of the various displays recited in dependent Claims 7-12), and/or the limitations recited by the dependent claims do not recite any additional elements not already recited in independent Claim 1, and hence do not amount to “significantly more” than the abstract idea.
Hence, Claims 1-16 do not include any additional elements that amount to “significantly more” than the judicial exception(s).
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea identified above. Furthermore, looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually, and there is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology, and their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
Therefore, whether taken individually or as an ordered combination, Claims 1-16 are nonetheless rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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 1-3, 6-10, and 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wood (US 2005/0113651) in view of Dobrean (US 2017/0068780), further in view of Ben-Zikri (“A feature-based affine registration method for capturing background lung tissue deformation for ground glass nodule tracking,” COMPUTER METHODS IN BIOMECHANICS AND BIOMEDICAL ENGINEERING: IMAGING & VISUALIZATION, 08 November 2021).
Regarding Claim 1, Wood teaches the following: An image diagnosis assisting device comprising:
one or more processors (The system includes a central processing unit implemented as a microprocessor, e.g. see Wood [0022].); and
one or more memories in which instructions to be executed by the one or more processors are stored (The system functions are implemented as a set of computer instructions stored on a memory and executed by the processor, e.g. see Wood [0034].),
wherein the one or more processors are configured to:
acquire a current medical image generated by imaging an organ of a subject in an examination (The system obtains at least one patient image, for example via transmission over a network, and/or from an imaging device, e.g. see Wood [0037] and [0042], wherein the obtained image may be included in a post-treatment report, e.g. see Wood [0080], Fig. 9. That is, the patient image is current with regards to representing the state of the patient after treatment.), wherein the current medical image includes an abnormal region, the abnormal region includes a lesion that has been reduced in size or has become invisible (The images in the post-treatment report includes Volumes of Interest (VOIs) (i.e. abnormal regions) that include lesions, e.g. see Wood [0029], wherein the VOIs may be reduced in size and/or eliminated over time with treatment, e.g. see Wood [0081].);
acquire treatment information regarding a treatment of the subject (The system obtains a pre-treatment report (i.e. treatment information) that forms a baseline for a treatment to be administered to a patient, e.g. see Wood [0050].), wherein;
the treatment information includes at least one of a past treatment location of the subject or a latest examination of the subject (The pre-treatment report includes a location for the treatment, for example a patient’s breasts (i.e. organ), e.g. see Wood [0044]-[0050].), the past treatment location of the subject or the latest examination of the subject includes a past image of the organ, the past image of the organ includes a past abnormal region (The pre-treatment report includes images of the treatment location including VOIs and lesions, e.g. see Wood [0044]-[0050], Fig. 8.), and
the abnormal region in the current medical image corresponding to a same location of the organ as the past abnormal region in the past image (The post-treatment report including the images for the patient after treatment (i.e. the current medical image) corresponds to the same location as the image in the pre-treatment report (i.e. the past image) including the VOIs and lesions, e.g. see Wood [0053]-[0055] and [0078]-[0086], Figs. 8-9.);
generate treatment progress information regarding a past treatment location in the subject based on the treatment information (The pre-treatment report is used for treatment planning, the treatment is administered to the patient based on the treatment planning, e.g. see Wood [0050] and [0053], and subsequently the system generates a post-treatment report including measurement data for a volume of interest (VOI) and/or changes in the VOIs from pre- to post-treatment (i.e. either of the measurement data and changes in the VOIs may be interpreted as treatment progress information), e.g. see Wood [0080]-[0084], Fig. 9. That is, the treatment is administered to a location, for example chemotherapy to the patient’s breasts, wherein the post-treatment report shows the progress of the treatment in treating the location after it has been administered.); and
perform control to display the treatment progress information on a screen on which the first medical image is displayed (The measurement data and changes in VOI are displayed together with the medical imaging, e.g. see Wood [0080]-[0084], Fig. 9.).
But Wood does not teach and Dobrean teaches the following:
wherein the first medical image is generated by imaging a subject in a latest examination (The system generates timelines for condition-specific imaging records, wherein the timelines emphasize the most recent imaging records for the patient, e.g. see Dobrean [0076].).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art of healthcare to modify Wood to incorporate the most recent imaging records as taught by Dobrean in order to enable users to quickly identify relevant medical imaging data, e.g. see Dobrean [0047].
But the combination of Wood and Dobrean does not teach and Ben-Zikri teaches the following:
wherein the treatment progress information visually corresponds between the abnormal region and the past abnormal region so as for the lesion in the abnormal region to be recognizable by indicating the abnormal region with a bounding box which is disposed at a position of the current medical image corresponding to the abnormal region in the past image and has a centroid position in the current image that matches a centroid position of the abnormal position in the past image (The system defines an RoI as a bounding box either centered at the centroid of an organ, for example a lung, or centered at the centroid of a lesion, wherein the system further aligns the centroid of the RoI of a follow-up scan (i.e. a current medical image) with the centroid of an initial scan (i.e. the past image) as an initial registration step for the images prior to the application of subsequent registration transformations, e.g. see Ben-Zikri Section 2.3.2.).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art of healthcare to modify the combination of Wood and Dobrean to incorporate the bounding box utilizing the centroid from the initial image as the centroid for the follow-up image as taught by Ben-Zikri in order to translate the follow-up image into the same coordinate system as the initial image and to ensure consistent object tracking, e.g. see Ben-Zikri Section 1. Introduction and 2.3.2.
Regarding Claim 2, the combination of Wood, Dobrean, and Ben-Zikri teaches the limitations of Claim 1, and Wood further teaches the following: The image diagnosis assisting device according to claim 1,
wherein the one or more processors are configured to acquire information regarding the past treatment location of the subject as the treatment information (The pre-treatment report (i.e. the treatment information) includes a particular location for the treatment, for example the patient’s breasts, e.g. see Wood [0063] and [0068], wherein the treatment may be performed multiple times and/or have multiple cycles, e.g. see Wood [0051] and [0055]. That is, a pre-treatment report for a second round of chemotherapy is based on the results from the first round of chemotherapy and hence indicative of a past treatment location.).
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of Wood, Dobrean, and Ben-Zikri teaches the limitations of Claim 2, and Wood further teaches the following: The image diagnosis assisting device according to claim 2,
wherein the one or more processors are configured to acquire, as the information regarding the past treatment location of the subject, character information including a description regarding the past treatment location of the subject (The pre-treatment report (i.e. the treatment information) includes text (i.e. character information) describing a particular location for the treatment, e.g. see Wood [0077], Fig. 8.).
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of Wood, Dobrean, and Ben-Zikri teaches the limitations of Claim 1, and Wood further teaches the following: The image diagnosis assisting device according to claim 1,
wherein the one or more processors are configured to acquire, as the treatment information, at least one of a name of an anatomical structure for which an instruction of a treatment has been provided in the past, a name of a lesion for which the instruction of the treatment has been provided in the past, a position of the lesion for which the instruction of the treatment has been provided in the past, or a treatment method that has been performed in the past (The pre-treatment report (i.e. the treatment information) includes text describing various anatomical structures, for example breasts, nipples, and/or chest walls, and/or a particular location for the treatment (i.e. a position of the lesion), e.g. see Wood [0077], Fig. 8.).
Regarding Claim 7, the combination of Wood, Dobrean, and Ben-Zikri teaches the limitations of Claim 1, and Wood further teaches the following: The image diagnosis assisting device according to claim 1,
wherein the current image including a first anatomical structure of the organ to be diagnosed in the latest examination (The post-treatment report includes an image including an anatomical structure, for example the patient’s breasts and the nipples corresponding to the breasts, e.g. see Wood [0080]-[0084], Fig. 9.).
Regarding Claim 8, the combination of Wood, Dobrean, and Ben-Zikri teaches the limitations of Claim 7, and Wood further teaches the following: The image diagnosis assisting device according to claim 7,
wherein the one or more processors are configured to generate, as the treatment progress information, information for designating, in a reconstructed image group including a plurality of two-dimensional reconstructed images, a position of the reconstructed image including the past treatment location (The post-treatment report metrics (i.e. the progress information) include a position of the VOI, and further are reflected in a plurality of images, wherein the images represent images of the anatomical features after treatment has been administered, e.g. see Wood [0080]-[0084], Fig. 9, and wherein the images may be as a result of reconstruction of scan information, e.g. see Wood [0025].).
Regarding Claim 9, the combination of Wood, Dobrean, and Ben-Zikri teaches the limitations of Claim 7, and Wood further teaches the following: The image diagnosis assisting device according to claim 7,
wherein the one or more processors are configured to apply segmentation processing of the first anatomical structure or labeling processing of the first anatomical structure to the first medical image to specify the past treatment location in the first diagnosis target image (The post-treatment report includes an indication (i.e. labels) of the location of the anatomical structure, for example in terms of distances to other anatomical structures, and further may include an ellipsoid (i.e. a segment) for a particular VOI that may assist a surgeon in surgical planning for possible removal of the VOI, e.g. see Wood [0045] and [0080]-[0084], Fig. 9.).
Regarding Claim 10, the combination of Wood, Dobrean, and Ben-Zikri teaches the limitations of Claim 7, and Wood further teaches the following: The image diagnosis assisting device according to claim 7,
wherein the one or more processors are configured to:
apply segmentation processing of the first anatomical structure or labeling processing of the first anatomical structure to the second medical image to specify the past treatment location in the second medical image (The images in the post-treatment report include an indication (i.e. labels) of the location of the anatomical structure, for example in terms of distances to other anatomical structures, and further may include an ellipsoid (i.e. a segment) for a particular VOI that may assist a surgeon in surgical planning for possible removal of the VOI, e.g. see Wood [0045] and [0080]-[0084], Fig. 9.).
Regarding Claim 13, the combination of Wood, Dobrean, and Ben-Zikri teaches the limitations of Claim 1, and Wood further teaches the following: The image diagnosis assisting device according to claim 1,
wherein the one or more processors are configured to:
in a case where a first anatomical structure of the organ to be examined in the latest examination is different from a second anatomical structure which is the past treatment location of the subject (The system includes a plurality of images in the pre-treatment report as well as a plurality of images in the post-treatment report, e.g. see Wood Figs. 8-9, wherein the system may be used for multiple cycles of chemotherapy where various stages of the process may be repeated as warranted, e.g. see Wood [0051] and [0055]. That is, the post-treatment report images for a first cycle of chemotherapy may be used as pre-treatment report images for a second cycle of chemotherapy, where the post-treatment report images for the first cycle of chemotherapy may be interpreted as “second medical images” for a past examination, as the first cycle of chemotherapy has already been completed. Additionally, the system may be used for a plurality of other tissue types and other anatomical locations, e.g. see Wood [0062] – that is, the system may image breasts currently, while having imaged a different tissue and/or anatomical location at a previous time.),
acquire the treatment information for the second anatomical structure (The system obtains a pre-treatment report (i.e. treatment information) that forms a baseline for a treatment to be administered to a patient, e.g. see Wood [0050], wherein the pre-treatment report may be for breasts and/or other tissue types and other anatomical locations, e.g. see Wood [0062].);
generate the treatment progress information for the second anatomical structure based on the treatment information for the second anatomical structure (The pre-treatment report is used for treatment planning, the treatment is administered to the patient based on the treatment planning, e.g. see Wood [0050] and [0053], and subsequently the system generates a post-treatment report including measurement data for a volume of interest (VOI) and/or changes in the VOIs from pre- to post-treatment (i.e. either of the measurement data and changes in the VOIs may be interpreted as treatment progress information), e.g. see Wood [0080]-[0084], Fig. 9, wherein the pre-and post-treatment reports may be for breasts and/or other tissue types and other anatomical locations, e.g. see Wood [0062].); and
display the treatment progress information for the second anatomical structure on a second diagnosis target image included in the first medical image, the second diagnosis target image including the second anatomical structure (The measurement data and changes in VOI are displayed together with the medical imaging, e.g. see Wood [0080]-[0084], Fig. 9, wherein the images and reports may be for breasts and/or other tissue types and other anatomical locations, e.g. see Wood [0062]..).
Regarding Claim 14, the combination of Wood, Dobrean, and Ben-Zikri teaches the limitations of Claim 1, and Wood further teaches the following: The image diagnosis assisting device according to claim 1,
wherein the one or more processors are configured to:
generate a plurality of pieces of the treatment progress information (The post-treatment report includes measurement data for a volume of interest (VOI) and/or changes in the VOIs from pre- to post-treatment (i.e. a plurality of pieces of treatment progress information), e.g. see Wood [0080]-[0084], Fig. 9.); and
apply a different display mode to each of the plurality of pieces of treatment progress information (The measurement data for the VOI may be displayed in a table (i.e. a display mode), whereas the changes in the VOI may be displayed graphically to show the difference between pre- and post-treatment (i.e. another display mode), e.g. see Wood [0080]-[0084], Fig. 9.).
Regarding Claims 15-16, the limitations of Claims 15-16 are substantially similar to those claimed in Claim 1, with the sole difference being that Claim 1 recites a device, whereas Claim 15 recites a method, and Claim 16 recites a non-transitory computer-readable tangible medium. Specifically pertaining to Claims 15-16, Examiner notes that Wood teaches that the functions of the invention may be embodied as a method and/or a set of instructions stored on a memory and executed by a processor, e.g. see Wood paragraphs [0002] and [0034], and hence the grounds of rejection provided above for Claim 1 are similarly applied to Claims 15-16.
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Wood, Dobrean, and Ben-Zikri in view of Ramunda (US 2017/0004257).
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of Wood, Dobrean, and Ben-Zikri teaches the limitations of Claim 1, but does not teach and Ramunda teaches the following: The image diagnosis assisting device according to claim 1,
wherein the one or more processors are configured to acquire request information for the latest examination of the subject as the treatment information (The system receives a request for the latest test results for an individual, e.g. see Ramunda [0063].).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art of healthcare to modify the combination of Wood, Dobrean, and Ben-Zikri to incorporate requesting the latest test results for the patient as taught by Ramunda in order to provide various planning and predictive analytics to improve patient outcomes, e.g. see Ramunda [0054].
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of Wood, Dobrean, Ben-Zikri, and Ramunda teaches the limitations of Claim 4, and Ramunda further teaches the following: The image diagnosis assisting device according to claim 4,
wherein the one or more processors are configured to acquire, as the request information for the latest examination of the subject, character information including a description regarding a purpose of the latest examination for the subject (The system includes health care information items that incorporate descriptors describing the health care information items, e.g. see Ramunda [0024], wherein the descriptors for the health care information items are used to determine what information should be retrieved in response to the request, for example based on keywords included in the request, e.g. see Ramunda [0007] and [0031]. Furthermore, the request specifies the type of data being requested (i.e. a purpose), for example lab results from a specific location, e.g. see Ramunda [0036]-[0041].).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art of healthcare to modify the combination of Wood, Dobrean, and Ben-Zikri to incorporate including the description of the purpose of the latest test examination results for the patient in the request as taught by Ramunda in order to provide various planning and predictive analytics to improve patient outcomes, e.g. see Ramunda [0054].
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Wood, Dobrean, and Ben-Zikri in view of Shen (US 2022/0414953).
Regarding Claim 11, the combination of Wood, Dobrean, and Ben-Zikri teaches the limitations of Claim 1, but does not teach and Shen teaches the following: The image diagnosis assisting device according to claim 1,
wherein the one or more processors are configured to generate, as the treatment progress information, a first trimmed image in which a region corresponding to the past treatment location in a first diagnosis target image included in the current medical image is trimmed, the first diagnosis target image including a first anatomical structure of the organ to be diagnosed in the latest examination (The system includes prior images and target images, and further includes cropped (i.e. trimmed) sub-images of the regions corresponding to the prior and target images, wherein the images show various tumor regions, e.g. see Shen [0017], Fig. 6.).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art of healthcare to modify the combination of Wood, Dobrean, and Ben-Zikri to incorporate the cropped images as taught by Shen in order to provide more robust and reliable images that can capture small structural changes such as tumor or lesion progression, e.g. see Shen [0010].
Subject Matter Free From Prior Art
Claim 12 is not presently rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 or 103, and hence would be in condition for allowance if amended to overcome the rejections presented under 35 U.S.C. 101. The following represents Examiner’s characterization of the most relevant prior art references and the differences between the present claim language and the prior art references in view of 35 U.S.C. 102 and/or 103:
With regards to 35 U.S.C. 102 and/or 103, the following represents the closest prior art to the claimed invention, as well as the differences between the prior art and the limitations of the presently claimed invention.
For the reasons disclosed above, the combination of Wood, Dobrean, Ben-Zikri, and Shen teaches the limitations of Claim 11 (from which Claim 12 depends). However, none of Wood, Dobrean, Ben-Zikri, or Shen teach, when a feature in an image is not recognizable in the first trimmed image, generating a second trimmed image from a past medical image of the subject, and displaying the second trimmed image in the region corresponding to the past treatment location in the first diagnosis target image.
Additionally, Wallace (US 2020/0000362) teaches the cropping of MRI images to a particular size, e.g. see Wallace [0072], to generate a region of interest surrounding an anatomical structure such as the pancreas, e.g. see Wallace [0119] and [0135]. Furthermore, Wallace teaches performing the cropping in order to train a support vector machine, e.g. see Wallace [0062], and/or as input into an image recognition neural network, e.g. see Wallace [0058]. However, Wallace does not teach, when a feature in an image is not recognizable in the first trimmed image, generating a second trimmed image from a past medical image of the subject, and displaying the second trimmed image in the region corresponding to the past treatment location in the first diagnosis target image.
The aforementioned references are understood to be the closest prior art. Various aspects of the present invention are known individually, but for the reasons disclosed above, the particular manner in which the elements are claimed, when considered as an ordered combination, distinguishes from the aforementioned references and hence the invention recited in Claim 12 is not considered to be a non-novel and/or obvious variant of the inventions taught by the closest prior art references.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed September 26, 2025, with respect to the rejections of Claims 1-16 under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant alleges that the claimed invention is patent eligible because the additional elements integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, specifically because it improves the way that a lesion is displayed to a physician, e.g. see pg. 9 of Remarks – Examiner disagrees.
Even assuming, arguendo, that the claimed invention provides an improvement to the viewing of a medical image for a physician, this represents an improvement to the abstract idea of a certain method of organizing human activities, and an improvement in the abstract idea itself is not an improvement in technology, e.g. see MPEP 2106.05(a)(II).
Applicant further alleges that the claimed invention recites significantly more than the abstract idea because the limitations pertaining to the bounding box are functions that are not achieved by a human mind with pencil and paper and require a machine, e.g. see pgs. 10-11 of Remarks – Examiner disagrees.
As an initial matter, Examiner notes that, as shown above, the claimed invention is not characterized as reciting a mental process, but instead recites a certain method of organizing human activities because the claim limitations are reasonably characterized as following rules or instructions for the determination of treatment progress information.
Hence, any arguments pertaining to the claimed invention being characterized as a mental process are moot.
For the aforementioned reasons, Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed September 26, 2025, regarding the rejections of Claims 1-16 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to any of the references being used in the current rejection. As stated above, the newly amended claim limitations of Claims 1 and 15-16 have necessitated the new grounds of rejection, and Ben-Zikri is now cited to address the newly amended claim limitations.
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 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 JOHN P GO whose telephone number is (703)756-1965. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-6pm PST.
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, PETER H CHOI can be reached at (469)295-9171. 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.
/JOHN P GO/Examiner, Art Unit 3681