Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/21/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant asserts that a "second inspection target image subjected to at least one of enlargement processing or highlight processing for a region including at least a part of a region of the marker" is not displayed on the report creation screen 50 of Ito (JP2009060945A). Further, Applicant contends that the medical image 16 displayed together with the key image 65 does not correspond to the claimed "second inspection target image"; and Applicant asserts that the "medical image 16" and the "key image 65" on the report creation screen 50 of Ito are different in configuration from the "first inspection target image" and the "second inspection target image" in claims 1 and 18.
Applicant further contends that a "second inspection target image" is not displayed on the report display screen 80 even in a case where the selection instruction is received for an annotation. The same applies to a report display screen 100 shown in each of FIGS. 12 and 13 of Ito.
Applicant further contends that the "second inspection target image" is not displayed on the report display screen 100 even in a case where the selection instruction is received for an annotation in the key images 110 and 112. The same applies to the report display screen 100 shown in FIG. 16 of Ito.
These arguments are fully considered but found unpersuasive, as the last Non-Final Office Action of 08/21/2025 clearly demonstrates how the prior art meets a "second inspection target image subjected to at least one of enlargement processing or highlight processing for a region including at least a part of a region of the marker." As read in said Non-Final Office Action, Ito teaches the findings of each affected area are selectively extracted and displayed; requesting doctor can refer to only the findings of the desired affected area. This is read in (Page 14, Paragraph 3).
PNG
media_image1.png
161
895
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Also of note is (Page 8, Paragraph 6), which teaches key image (65) obtained by performing image processing such as enlargement/ reduction and gradation processing on medical image (16).
PNG
media_image2.png
121
893
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Additionally, key image (65) is included for reference.
PNG
media_image3.png
248
391
media_image3.png
Greyscale
See also (Images 110 and 112).
PNG
media_image4.png
310
768
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Because Ito is capable of performing image processing such as enlargement / reduction and gradation processing on a medical image and display this result, the claimed invention’s requirement of the second inspection target image being subjected to at least one of enlargement processing or highlight processing for a region including at least a part of a region of the marker is met by the prior art.
Applicant further asserts that the claimed features have an effect of allowing a user to visually recognize, in detail, the region of the marker for which the selection instruction is received. Applicant contends that a person skilled in the art would not have predicted this effect of the claimed features based on the teachings of Ito.
The effect that is disputed by the Applicant’s remarks, allowing a user to visually recognize, in detail, the region of the marker for which the selection instruction is received, is an inherent advantage of the features described in Ito. To provide an enlarged image would naturally serve the purpose of allowing the viewer of said image to recognize features in greater detail. Further, a marker used to indicate the area of selection is a commonly known feature of many software solutions across many technical fields and Ito certainly incorporates this (“a mark”, page 3, third paragraph) in the interpretation report to indicate a position of the feature point from the medical image.
For these reasons, Applicant’s remarks have been fully considered, but are respectfully found unpersuasive. Therefore, the grounds for rejection set forth in the aforementioned last Non-Final Office Action of 08/21/2025 remain in effect.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 1-2, 6-14, 18-19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ito (JP2009060945A) for the same reason as set forth in the last Office Action.
With regards to newly added dependent claim 20, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein. See also aforementioned images 110 and 112 which depict a display of “first information” (66) and “second information” (67-68).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW JAMES BODNARK whose telephone number is (703)756-5378. The examiner can normally be reached 8a-5p.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Vu Le can be reached at (571) 272-7332. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MATTHEW JAMES BODNARK/ Examiner, Art Unit 2668
/VU LE/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2668
Prosecution Insights