DETAILED ACTION
Notice of AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Request for Continued Examination
2. 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1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17© has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 04/10/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
3. Applicant’s remarks received on 04/10/2026 with respect to the amended independent claims have been acknowledged and are moot in view of a new ground of rejected necessitated by the corresponding amendment. Currently claims 1, 4-7, 9 and 10 are rejected; and claims 2, 3, and 8 are cancelled.
Response to Amendment
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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.
51066.. Claims 1, 5, 9, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Soo et al (KR Pub: 20200060129) and in further view of Krishnan (US Pub: 20050102315) and Golden et al (US Pub: 20200380675).
Regarding claim 1 (currently amended), Soo et al teaches: An information processing apparatus comprising at least one processor, wherein the processor is configured to: acquire a first image comprising a medical image including a plurality of lesion regions [page 2: p04, p05]; classify a high or low degree of interest of at least one first lesion region among the plurality of lesion regions; specify at least one second lesion region similar to the first lesion region among the plurality of lesion regions in a case where the degree of interest is low; and make a display method of the first lesion region and the second lesion region classified as having a low degree of interest different from a display method of other lesion regions in a case where the plurality of lesion regions are highlighted and the medical image is displayed on a display [page 7: p02-p04]. Although second lesion similar to the first is not explicitly stated, given Soo et al’s identification on different degrees of interest and assignment of a color to similar degree of interest, it would have been obvious that an ordinary skilled in the art would have recognized the CAM-based highlighting producing multiple similar-interest regions.
Soo et al does not add or remove highlights or bounding boxes. In the same field of endeavor, Krishnan teaches: wherein: a highlight or a bounding box is added to each of the plurality of lesion regions in the first image; or a comment describing each of the plurality of lesion regions is added to the first image; generate a second image by: removing the highlights or the bounding boxes from the first lesion region and the second lesion region classified as having the low degree of interest in the first image; or removing the comments describing the first lesion region and the second lesion region classified as having the low degree of interest from the first image [p0054]; and display the second image on a display [p0040-p0042]. Therefore, given Krishnan’s prescription on adding or removing marks from image, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of the two to add or remove marks/highlight to areas based on their interest level for emphasizing or de-emphasizing purpose.
Soo et al in view of Krishnan does not compare lesion based on distance. In the same field of endeavor, Golden et al teaches: extract image feature amounts of each of the plurality of lesion regions from the medical image using a learning model and vectorize the image feature amounts of each of the plurality of lesion regions as a respective image feature amount vector [p0306, p0314, p0318, p0319]; determine a degree of similarity between the first lesion region and each other lesion regions among the plurality of lesion regions based on a distance between the image feature amount vectors [p0318, p0320, p0321]; specify at least one second lesion region having the degree of similarity equal to or higher than a predetermined value [p0299, p0322, p0323]. Therefore, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of all to categorize lesion based on degree of similarity to differentiate lesions in order to de-emphasize and reduce redundant review.
Regarding claim 5 (previously presented), the rationale applied to the rejection of claim 1 has been incorporated herein. Soo et al further teaches: The information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to acquire a predetermined degree of interest for a lesion region similar to the first lesion region as the degree of interest of the first lesion region [page 7: p02-p05].
Claim 9 (currently amended) has been analyzed and rejected with regard to claim 1.
Claim 10 (currently amended) has been analyzed and rejected with regard to claim 1 and in accordance with Soo et al’s further teaching on: A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing an information processing program for causing a computer to execute a process [page 9: p03].
61066.. Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Soo et al (KR Pub: 20200060129), Krishnan (US Pub: 20050102315), and Golden et al (US Pub: 20200380675); and in further view of Kumiko et al (WO Pub: 2014184887) (Applicant submitted reference).
Regarding claim 4 (original), the rationale applied to the rejection of claim 1 has been incorporated herein. Soo et al discloses assignment of interest levels for received images. In the same field of endeavor, Kumiko et al teaches: The information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to receive an input of the high or low degree of interest [page 5: p03-p05]. Therefore, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of the two to receive input of high or low degree of interest based on user preference.
71066.. Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Soo et al (KR Pub: 20200060129), Krishnan (US Pub: 20050102315), and Golden et al (US Pub: 20200380675); and in further view of Lisowska et al (JP Pub: 2019212296).
Regarding claim 6 (previously presented), the rationale applied to the rejection of claim 1 has been incorporated herein. Soo et al in view of Krishnan does not compare images. In the same field of endeavor, Lisowska et al teaches: The information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to estimate the degree of interest of the first lesion region based on whether or not there is a description of a lesion region similar to the first lesion region in an interpretation report describing another medical image including the lesion region [page 1: abstract, page 2: p07]. Therefore, given Lisowska et al’s teaching on comparing lesion regions from different images, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of all to decide a degree of interest by comparing lesion regions of different images for confirmation purpose.
Regarding claim 7 (previously presented), the rationale applied to the rejection of claim 1 has been incorporated herein. Lisowska et al further teaches: The information processing apparatus according to claim 6, wherein the processor is configured to estimate that the degree of interest of the first lesion region is low in a case where there is no description of the lesion region similar to the first lesion region in the interpretation report describing another medical image including the lesion region [page 7: p08; page 8: p01 (When there is no lesion description present in other reports, similarity evaluation will be downgraded.)]. Therefore, given Soo et al’s prescription on high/low prediction interest based on comparison to a predetermined correct answer [page 7: p05] and Lisowska et al’s teaching on lesion feature similarity evaluation, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of the two to estimate degree of interest of a lesion region based on comparison result with other images for confirmation purpose.
Contact
8. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FAN ZHANG whose telephone number is (571)270-3751. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 9:00-5:00.
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, Benny Tieu can be reached on 571-272-7490. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Fan Zhang/
Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2682
Prosecution Insights