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
INFORMATION DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 08/21/2023 & 02/21/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
FOREIGN PRIORITY
A claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C § 119 (a) - (d), which was contained in the Declaration and Power of Attorney filed on 08/21/2023 has been acknowledged. Acknowledgement of claimed foreign priority and receipt of priority documents is reflected in form PTO-326 Office Action Summary.
CLAIM INTERPRETATIONS - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”;
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure`, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a selection unit” “an acquisition unit” and “a control unit” in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
CLAIM REJECTIONS - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 9-10 & 38-39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) (1) as being anticipated by
Arima (U.S. Publication 2015/0272703)
As to claims 1 & 38, Arima discloses an imaging apparatus including an imaging unit (7a/7b, “X-Ray detectors”, [0036, 0061 discloses detecting/capturing an x-ray image (a radiation image)]) configured to capture an image for an examination, and a communication unit ([0031, 0033, 0037 discloses a communication unit 20 including a reception unit 17 and a transmission unit 18. ) configured to communicate with a predetermined system, the imaging apparatus comprising: a selection unit configured to select an examination purpose (S503, Fig. 5 & [0029, 0052, 0074-0075, 0077] discloses acquiring an examination order. This examination order contains an examination item. When the operator selects any one examination order from the list. Examiner submits select an examination purpose is viewed as examination order. ); an acquisition unit configured to acquire image capturing control information corresponding to the examination purpose selected by the selection unit from the system via the communication unit ([0054, 0074] discloses transmission unit 18. The reception unit 17 receives the examination order from the RIS 12. (S503, Fig. 5 & [0074-0075) discloses obtaining the examination order from the RIS 12)([0030, 0060] discloses RIS “adds an imaging condition and transmits this examination order with the imaging condition. Apparatus “transmits an imaging condition (voltage/current/irradiation time) set corresponding to the selected imaging method. ); and a control unit configured to set at least one of a setting value of an image capturing condition based on the image capturing control information ([0005, 0057, 0060] discloses transmitting an imaging condition (an xray tube voltage/current/ irradiation time period.)
display content to be displayed on a display unit together with an image to be captured by the imaging unit ([0035] discloses display unit 2 displays various kinds of information. See An image is displayed)([0063] discloses displays this X-ray image in the captured image display area 111. [0119] discloses a text interruption imaging is displayed on the X-ray image),
and an item of information to be associated with an image captured by the imaging unit
([0030] discloses the x ray imaging control apparatus 1 adds the examination order to a captured image.)
based on the image capturing control information acquired in accordance with the examination purpose ([0076] discloses instructing the display control unit 16 to display patient data. See “display an imaging button corresponding to imaging information and display the ready message”.).
As to claim 9, Arima discloses everything as disclosed in claim 1. In addition, Arima discloses wherein the selection unit selects the examination purpose in accordance with a user operation from among a plurality of examination purposes acquired from the system via the communication unit. ([0052-0055, 0077-0079] discloses acquires a list of examination orders from RIS and the operator selects one.)
As to claim 10, Arima discloses everything as disclosed in claim 9. In addition, Arima discloses wherein, in a case where a number of examination purposes acquired from the sys
tem is one, the selection unit automatically selects the examination purpose.
As to claim 39, Arima discloses everything as disclosed in claim 1. In addition, Arima discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a program for causing a computer to function as each unit according to Claim 1. ([0146-0147] discloses a non-transitory computer readable medium and program execution.)
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 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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arima (U.S. Publication 2015/0272703) in view of IWAMOTO et al. (U.S. Publication 2015/0078527)
As to claim 2, Arima discloses everything as disclosed in claim 1 but is silent to wherein the imaging apparatus is a portable imaging apparatus.
However, IWAMOTO discloses wherein the imaging apparatus is a portable imaging apparatus. (Abstract & [0018-0021, 0045] discloses a portable radiographic imaging apparatus ([0002-0003, 0010]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify Arima’s disclosure to include the above limitations in order to enable the same examination workflow driven imaging control to be deployed at the point of care (i.e. locations where fixed/room tethered imaging is impractical). A opportunity to lower the amount of cameras employed (e.g. cost).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arima (U.S. Publication 2015/0272703) in view of MOON et al. (U.S. Publication 2014/0049652)
As to claim 3, Arima discloses everything as disclosed in claim 1 but is silent to wherein the control unit sets the setting value of the image capturing condition based on the image capturing control information acquired in accordance with the examination purpose, and wherein the image capturing condition includes at least one of a focus position, a zoom position, an ISO sensitivity, an exposure, a shutter speed, an aperture, white balance, color adjustment, and electronic flash on/off.
However, MOON discloses wherein the control unit sets the setting value of the image capturing condition based on the image capturing control information acquired in accordance with the examination purpose, and wherein the image capturing condition includes at least one of a focus position, a zoom position, an ISO sensitivity ([0064]), an exposure, a shutter speed, an aperture, white balance, color adjustment, and electronic flash on/off.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify Arima’s disclosure to include the above limitations in order to automatically configure capture settings for examination images based on received control information and reduce operator trial and error while achieving predictable improvements in image consistency.
Claims 4-5, 19-20, 23-24, 27, 29-30, 32-33 & 35-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arima (U.S. Publication 2015/0272703) in view of Baker et al. (U.S. Publication 2020/0261016)
As to claim 4, Arima discloses everything as disclosed in claim 1 but is silent to wherein, based on the image capturing control information received in accordance with the examination purpose, the control unit determines a type of an image capturing assisting graphic to be displayed together with an image to be captured by the imaging unit, and performs control to display the determined image capturing assisting graphic on a display section of the imaging apparatus.
However, Baker discloses wherein, based on the image capturing control information received in accordance with the examination purpose, the control unit determines a type of an image capturing assisting graphic to be displayed together with an image to be captured by the imaging unit, and performs control to display the determined image capturing assisting graphic on a display section of the imaging apparatus. ([0030-0037] discloses the mapping guide is a schematic depiction of a human body dividing into a plurality of body sections wherein each section may be highlighted to provide the user with an indication of what part of the body is being image and/or examined. The body map can be scaled to match the user’s size and super imposed on the real time image of the user.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify Arima’s disclosure to include the above limitations in order to improve capture accuracy and ensure the correct target region is imaged.
As to claim 5, Arima in view of Baker discloses everything as disclosed in claim 4. In addition, Baker discloses wherein the type of the image capturing assisting graphic includes at least one of a graphic indicating an affected part in a last examination, a graphic indicating an outline of a region to be examined ([0030-0037] discloses the mapping guide is a schematic depiction of a human body dividing into a plurality of body sections wherein each section may be highlighted to provide the user with an indication of what part of the body is being image and/or examined. The body map can be scaled to match the user’s size and super imposed on the real time image of the user.), a straight line for teeth bite position, and an outline of a dental arch.
As to claim 19, Arima discloses everything as disclosed in claim 1 but is silent to a region selection unit configured to select an image capturing target region based on region information included in the image capturing control information.
However, Baker’s [0030-0034] discloses a region selection unit configured to select an image capturing target region based on region information included in the image capturing control information. ([0034] discloses a user selection is received of a particular body area. [0033] discloses providing the mapping guide including displaying information and/or body areas based on learning from prior sessions biopsy results. [0030] discloses the system may select the section to be imaged based on various parameters, such as history or mole risk index. )
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify Arima’s disclosure to include the above limitations in order to prioritize and standardize capture of clinically relevant regions.
As to claim 20, Arima in view of Baker discloses everything as disclosed in claim 19. In addition, Baker discloses wherein the region selection unit selects the image capturing target region from among region candidates determined based on the image capturing control information. ([0030] discloses the system may select the section to be imaged based on various parameters, such as history or mole risk index. See dividing into a plurality of body sections. Allowance is provided to divide a body area into smaller areas to support finer resolution mapping.)
As to claim 23, Arima in view of Baker discloses everything as disclosed in claim 20 but is silent to wherein the control unit performs control to display a region selection screen for selecting the image capturing target region from among the region candidates on the display unit.
However, Baker discloses wherein the control unit performs control to display a region selection screen for selecting the image capturing target region from among the region candidates on the display unit. ([0029-0030] discloses methods include “providing a mapping guide receiving a selection. [0030] discloses each body area shown is user selectable. The user may select by tapping on a particular area.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify Arima in view of Baker’s disclosure to include the above limitations in order to allow fast, standardized capture targeting.
As to claim 24, Arima in view of Baker discloses everything as disclosed in claim 23 but is silent to wherein, based on information regarding a region required to be image-captured that is included in the image capturing control information, the control unit performs control to display the region selection screen in such a manner that a candidate of the region required to be image-captured is distinguishable.
However, Baker discloses wherein, based on information regarding a region required to be image-captured that is included in the image capturing control information, the control unit performs control to display the region selection screen in such a manner that a candidate of the region required to be image-captured is distinguishable. ([0030, 0040] discloses each section may be highlighted as a contrasting color. Mapping guide includes indications showing where the user should capture more images.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify Arima in view of Baker’s disclosure to include the above limitations in order to reduce omission of required regions.
As to claim 27, Arima discloses everything as disclosed in claim 1 but is silent to wherein, in a case where a symptom of a disease to be the examination purpose includes a rash, the control unit controls the imaging unit to capture images at a plurality of different field angles.
However, Baker discloses wherein, in a case where a symptom of a disease to be the examination purpose includes a rash, the control unit controls the imaging unit to capture images at a plurality of different field angles. ([0050, 0052] discloses the camera captures a series of images at different focal lengths. Prompted to capture a first wide angle image then prompted to take specific close up shots.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify Arima’s disclosure to include the above limitations in order to capture both context and detail for clinical review.
As to claim 29, Arima in view of Baker discloses everything as disclosed in claim 27 but is silent to wherein, in the case where the symptom of the disease to be the examination purpose includes a rash, the control unit performs control to capture a bird's-eye image and an enlarged image.
However, Baker’s [0052] discloses wherein, in the case where the symptom of the disease to be the examination purpose includes a rash, the control unit performs control to capture a bird's-eye image and an enlarged image. ([0052] discloses capturing a first wide angle image then specific close-up shot.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify Arima in view of Baker’s disclosure to include the above limitations in order to both anatomical context and lesion detail are available.
As to claim 30, Arima in view of Baker discloses everything as disclosed in claim 29 but is silent to wherein the control unit determines whether or not the bird's-eye image and the enlarged image have been captured based on focal length information of a lens of a captured image.
However, Baker discloses wherein the control unit determines whether or not the bird's-eye image and the enlarged image have been captured based on focal length information of a lens of a captured image. ([0049-0050] discloses metadata may include focal length image dimensions. Also see images captured at different focal lengths.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify Arima in view of Baker’s disclosure to include the above limitations in order to programmatically verify completion of required capture types.
As to claim 32, Arima discloses everything as disclosed in claim 1 but is silent to wherein a region selection unit configured to select an image capturing target region, wherein the region selection unit selects a region estimated based on an image captured by the imaging unit as an image capturing target region.
However, Baker discloses wherein a region selection unit configured to select an image capturing target region, wherein the region selection unit selects a region estimated based on an image captured by the imaging unit as an image capturing target region. ([0052, 0091] discloses wide angle image digitally annotated for important areas then close up shots within the wide angle image. For large enough areas the system may automatically determine the body area.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify Arima’s disclosure to include the above limitations in order to streamline navigation to correct target region.
As to claim 33, Arima in view of Baker discloses everything as disclosed in claim 32 but is silent to wherein the region selection unit selects a region estimated based on an image captured by the imaging unit during an image capturing standby time as the image capturing target region, and wherein the control unit transmits an affected part image captured by the imaging unit in accordance with an image capturing instruction from a user and information regarding a region selected by the region selection unit to the system in association with each other.
However, Baker discloses wherein the region selection unit selects a region estimated based on an image captured by the imaging unit during an image capturing standby time as the image capturing target region, and wherein the control unit transmits an affected part image captured by the imaging unit in accordance with an image capturing instruction from a user and information regarding a region selected by the region selection unit to the system in association with each other. ([0037, 0049, 0064] discloses users can see and control the camera remotely while being able to see what the camera sees and the body map superimposed on real time image. Metadata may include body area or unique identifier. This device may transmit the images including any metadata. )
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify Arima in view of Baker’s disclosure to include the above limitations in order to preserve clinical context and support correct retrieval/review.
As to claim 35, Arima in view of Baker discloses everything as disclosed in claim 32 but is silent to wherein the region selection unit causes a user to select a region via a region selection screen from among a plurality of regions acquired by the region acquisition unit.
However, Baker discloses wherein the region selection unit causes a user to select a region via a region selection screen from among a plurality of regions acquired by the region acquisition unit. ([0030, 0087] discloses each body area shown is user selectable by tapping. Users may click on an area and from there to a specific point that has a marker. )
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify Arima in view of Baker’s disclosure to include the above limitations in order to support accurate targeting when multiple regions/features are detected.
As to claim 36, Arima in view of Baker discloses everything as disclosed in claim 32 but is silent to wherein the region selection unit selects a region estimated based on an image captured by the imaging unit during an image capturing standby time as an image capturing target region, and wherein the control unit performs control to display the selected region on the display unit together with a live image captured by the imaging unit.
However, Baker discloses wherein the region selection unit selects a region estimated based on an image captured by the imaging unit during an image capturing standby time as an image capturing target region, and wherein the control unit performs control to display the selected region on the display unit together with a live image captured by the imaging unit. ([0037, 0095 discloses body map super imposed on the real time image. Monitors show scanned areas; camera current field of views unscanned area to guide the user.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify Arima in view of Baker’s disclosure to include the above limitations in order to guide capture positioning and reduce user error.
As to claim 37, Arima in view of Baker discloses everything as disclosed in claim 33 but is silent to wherein the control unit sets a setting value of an image capturing condition based on the image capturing control information acquired in accordance with the examination purpose, and a region selected by the region selection unit.
However, Baker discloses wherein the control unit sets a setting value of an image capturing condition based on the image capturing control information acquired in accordance with the examination purpose, and a region selected by the region selection unit. ([0030, 0036, 0050, 0060] discloses select the section to be imaged based on history or mole risk index. Software can select to optically zoom in on specific skin features for higher resolution images. Capture images at different focal lengths. Systems can take images at multiple exposure.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify Arima in view of Baker’s disclosure to include the above limitations in order to clinically useful resolution/quality for the specific target.
Claims 6-7 & 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arima (U.S. Publication 2015/0272703) in view of Sugimoto (U.S. Publication 2020/0193601)
As to claim 6, Arima discloses everything as disclosed in claim 1 but is silent to wherein the control unit sets an examination evaluation item to be associated with an image captured by the imaging unit based on the image capturing control information acquired in accordance with the examination purpose.
However, Sugimoto discloses wherein the control unit sets an examination evaluation item ([0069] discloses a user may select one or multiple evaluation indexes from among five evaluation indexes) to be associated with an image captured by the imaging unit ([0093, 0112] discloses evaluation index names are superimposed on the image. Label 1015 contains evaluation index name 1012) based on the image capturing control information acquired in accordance with the examination purpose ([0080] discloses outputs the reference values for the evaluation indexes.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify Arima’s disclosure to include the above limitations in order to ensure the captured image is documented with the applicable clinical evaluation items and their evaluation context for consistent assessment and review.
As to claim 7, Arima in view of Sugimoto discloses everything as disclosed in claim 6 but is silent to wherein, based on the image capturing control information acquired in accordance with the examination purpose, the control unit sets the examination evaluation item from among a plurality of examination evaluation items including at least one of DESIGN-R ([0005]), a specified symptom sum score system with grading of scaling, roughness, redness and cracks (SRRC), an Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI), a Psoriasis Area Severity Index (PASI), and a Total Body Surface Area (TBSA).
However, Sugimoto discloses wherein, based on the image capturing control information acquired in accordance with the examination purpose, the control unit sets the examination evaluation item from among a plurality of examination evaluation items including at least one of DESIGN-R, a specified symptom sum score system with grading of scaling, roughness, redness and cracks (SRRC), an Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI), a Psoriasis Area Severity Index (PASI), and a Total Body Surface Area (TBSA).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify Arima in view of Sugimoto’s disclosure to include the above limitations in order to standardize image based documentation and support consistent grading across examinations.
As to claim 17, Arima discloses everything as disclosed in claim 1 but is silent to an image analysis result receiving unit configured to transmit an image captured by the imaging unit to the system via the communication unit, and receive an image analysis result of the image in the system from the system via the communication unit, wherein the control unit controls information that is based on the image analysis result received by the image analysis result receiving unit to be displayed together with the image.
However, Sugimoto discloses an image analysis result receiving unit configured to transmit an image captured by the imaging unit to the system via the communication unit, and receive an image analysis result of the image in the system from the system via the communication unit, wherein the control unit controls information that is based on the image analysis result received by the image analysis result receiving unit to be displayed together with the image. ([0080, 0097])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify Arima’s disclosure to include the above limitations in order to provide immediate, on device visual feedback of the analysis while/after capturing (reducing reliance on a separate client terminal and improving operator speed/accuracy in interpreting the analysis).
Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arima (U.S. Publication 2015/0272703) in view of Molenda (U.S. Publication 2015/0134361)
As to claim 12, Arima discloses everything as disclosed in claim 1 but is silent to a patient information acquisition unit configured to transmit a patient image captured by the imaging unit to the system via the communication unit, and receive and acquire patient information corresponding to a patient of the patient image from the system via the communication unit.
However, Molenda discloses a patient information acquisition unit configured to transmit a patient image captured by the imaging unit to the system via the communication unit, and receive and acquire patient information corresponding to a patient of the patient image from the system via the communication unit. (72, [0035] & Fig. 2 discloses an image interface that extracts template fields from an image of the supply label/patient IF label.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify Arima’s disclosure to include the above limitations in order to reduce manual data entry errors and automatically populate record fields from commonly available supply/patient ID labeling.
As to claim 13, Arima in view of Molenda discloses everything as disclosed in claim 12 but is silent to wherein the patient information acquisition unit transmits, to the system, a captured image of a code related to a patient as the patient image, and receives, from the system, patient information corresponding to a code obtained by the system analyzing the patient image.
However, Molenda discloses wherein the patient information acquisition unit transmits, to the system, a captured image of a code related to a patient as the patient image, and receives, from the system, patient information corresponding to a code obtained by the system analyzing the patient image. (69, [0031] & Fig. 2 discloses an image interface that extracts template fields from an image of the supply label/patient IF label.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify Arima in view of Molenda’s disclosure to include the above limitations in order to give clinicans quick longitudinal access to prior procedures/diagnoses tied to the sam3e anatomical (or treatment) location for follow-up care and documentation.
Claim 34 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arima (U.S. Publication 2015/0272703) in view of Baker et al. (U.S. Publication 2020/0261016) as applied in claim 32, above further in view of Goluguri (U.S. Publication 2020/0169762)
As to claim 34, Arima in view of Baker discloses everything as disclosed in claim 1 but is silent to a region acquisition unit configured to acquire the region estimated based on an image captured by the imaging unit, wherein the region acquisition unit transmits an image captured by the imaging unit during an image capturing standby time to the system, and acquires a region estimated based on the image from the system.
However, Goluguri discloses a region acquisition unit configured to acquire the region estimated based on an image captured by the imaging unit, wherein the region acquisition unit transmits an image captured by the imaging unit during an image capturing standby time to the system, and acquires a region estimated based on the image from the system. ([0015-0016, 0029, 0035)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify Arima in view of Baker’s disclosure to include the above limitations in order to enable remote processing/serving of camera derived information using current captured images and avoid stale or unavailable views/results.
CONCLUSION
No prior art has been found for claims 8, 11, 14-18, 21-22, 25-26, 28 & 31 in their current form.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Stephen P Coleman whose telephone number is (571)270-5931. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8AM-5PM.
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, Andrew Moyer can be reached at (571) 272-9523. 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.
Stephen P. Coleman
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2675
/STEPHEN P COLEMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2675