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 .
Applicant’s Response
In Applicant’s Response dated 8/24/26, the Applicant amended Claims 1, 17, 18 and argued Claims previously rejected in the Office Action dated 6/4/26. Claims 1, 3-8, 10-18 are pending examination.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 8/24/26 has been entered.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 9/4/26 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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, 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, 4, 7, 8, 10, and 14-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song et al., United States Patent Publication 2019/0139218, in view of Sorenson et al., United States Patent Publication 20180101645 (hereinafter “Sorenson”).
Claim 1:
Song discloses:
A document creation support apparatus comprising at least one processor,
wherein the processor is configured to:
acquire a medical image including a plurality of regions of interest (see paragraphs [0015] and [0016]). Song teaches the regions of interests can be acquire semi-automatically or automatically from the medical image;
analyze each of the plurality of regions of interest to derive findings of each of the regions of interest, wherein the findings including a type of each of the regions of interest (see paragraph [0015]). Song teaches analyzing different regions of interest to derive findings and suspicious regions.
generate text including a description of at least one of the plurality of regions of interest (see paragraph [0064]). Song teaches generating text and keywords based on the weights giving to the features and regions of interest.
perform control to display the generated document on an interpretation report screen (see paragraph [0046] and [0057]). Song teaches displaying the generated report.
Song fails to expressly disclose acquiring an evaluation value that is set in advance from an evaluation table.
Sorenson discloses:
access a memory to refer to an evaluation value table derive an evaluation index as a target of a medical document for each of the plurality of regions of interest by acquiring, from the evaluation value table, an evaluation value that is set in advance and associated with the type of each of the regions of interest (see paragraphs [0063]). Sorenson teaches an algorithm that access data to evaluate the regions associated with each type that is set in advance; and
determine, for each of the plurality of regions of interest, whether to include the finding derived for the corresponding region of interest as a description in the medical document based on whether the evaluation value of the evaluation index derived for the corresponding region of interest is equal to or greater than a threshold value (see paragraphs [0142] and [0153]). Sorenson teaches determining based on the evaluations values set in advance if the regions of interest are equal to or greater than the threshold values.
generate the medical document by composing text including only the description of the finding for at least one of the plurality of regions of interest whose evaluation value is equal to or greater than the threshold value among the plurality of regions of interest (see paragraph [0081] and [0109]). Sorenson teaches generating the medical document by composing text includes data of the finding/region of interest that meets the threshold; and
perform control to display the generated medical document on an interpretation report screen (see paragraph [0129]). Sorenson teaches performing control to display the document and that the doctor can manipulate the document.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by Song to include the determining if the description of the findings that meet threshold should be included in the medical document for the purpose of efficiently prioritizing regions of interests to compare to old findings to advance the technology, as taught by Sorenson.
Claim 3:
Song discloses:
wherein the processor is configured to determine whether or not to include, in the text, a feature of a region of interest to be included in the text according to the evaluation index (see paragraphs [0005], [0016], [0047]). Song discloses determining the suspicious regions of interests, generating keywords based on the weighted features and generating reports based on the region of interest.
Claim 4:
Song discloses:
wherein the processor is configured to determine a description order of regions of interest to be included in the text according to the evaluation index (see paragraph [0047]). Song teaches determining an order of the keyword description based on the features of the region of interest.
Claim 7:
Song discloses:
wherein the processor is configured to generate the text in a sentence format (see paragraph [0022]). Song teaches the generated report information can be in sentence format.
Claim 8:
Song discloses:
wherein the processor is configured to generate the text in a bullet format or a tabular format (see paragraph [0052]). Song teaches generate text for the reports in table format.
Claim 10:
Song discloses:
wherein the processor is configured to derive the evaluation index according to a presence or absence of change from the same region of interest detected in a past examination (see paragraph [0015]). Song teaches the making changes by the adding the new finding and generating new reports based on the new weighted features.
Claim 14:
Song discloses:
wherein processor is configured to, in displaying the text, perform control to display a description of a region of interest with the evaluation value higher than at a time of detection in a past examination in an identifiable manner from descriptions of other regions of interest (see paragraphs [0048] and [0049]). Song teaches the weight is a value and controls which description/report is displayed based on the order of the values.
Claim 15:
Song discloses:
wherein the processor is configured to change a display mode of the description regarding the region of interest included in the text according to the evaluation index (see paragraph [0050]). Song teaches a switch to change the views regarding the images and reports.
Claim 16:
Song discloses:
wherein the processor is configured to: perform control to display the derived evaluation index; receive a correction to the evaluation index; and generate the text based on an evaluation index reflecting the received correction (see paragraphs [0047]-[0049] and [0056]). Song teaches the user being able to make adjustments through the user interface to the regions of interests/weights.
Claim 17, 18:
Although Claim 17 is a method claim and Claim 18 is a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, they are interpreted and rejected for the same reasons as the apparatus of Claim 1.
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song and Sorenson, in view of Toshifumi et al., JP2004110398A (hereinafter “Toshifumi”).
Claim 5:
Song and Sorenson fail to expressly disclose determining an amount of description based on index of region of interest.
Toshifumi discloses:
wherein the processor is configured to determine an amount of description of the text according to the evaluation index for a region of interest to be included in the text (see paragraph [0010]). Toshifumi teaches the number of characters for the description being based on the priority of the region of interest.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by Song and Sorenson to include the number of characters based the index value for the purpose of efficiently prioritizing regions of interests, as taught by Toshifumi.
Claim 6:
Song and Sorenson fail to expressly disclose determining an amount of description based on index of region of interest.
Toshifumi discloses:
wherein the processor is configured to generate text including a description regarding a region of interest in order from a region of interest with a highest evaluation value, the text having a predetermined number of characters as an upper limit value (see paragraphs [0010], [0030] and [0031]). Toshifumi teaches the number of characters being directly tied to the priority of the region of interest. The higher the region of interest, the more characters for the description.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by Song and Sorenson to include the number of characters based the index value for the purpose of efficiently prioritizing regions of interests, as taught by Toshifumi.
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song, in view of Sorenson, in further view of Hitoshi et al., United States Patent Publication 20210056690 (hereinafter “Hitoshi”).
Claim 11:
Song and Sorenson fail to expressly disclose priority or index value based on past examination.
Hitoshi discloses:
wherein the evaluation index is an evaluation value, and the processor is configured to make the evaluation value of a region of interest that has changed from the same region of interest detected in the past examination higher than the evaluation value of a region of interest that has not changed (see paragraphs [0074]). Hitoshi teaches based on the past examination of detected regions of interest, make those regions of interest higher/lower priority.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by Song and Sorenson to include the priority/index value of the region of interest based on past examination for the purpose of efficiently prioritizing regions of interests based on examination results, as taught by Hitoshi.
Claim 12:
Song and Sorenson fail to expressly disclose priority or index value based on past examination.
Hitoshi discloses:
wherein the processor is configured to derive the evaluation index according to whether or not the same region of interest has been detected in a past examination (see paragraphs [0074]). Hitoshi teaches based on the past examination of detected regions of interest, make those regions of interest higher/lower priority.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by Song and Sorenson to include the determining priority/index value of the region of interest based on past examination for the purpose of efficiently prioritizing regions of interests based on examination results, as taught by Hitoshi.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song and Sorenson, in view of Niwa et al., 20130290826 (hereinafter “Niwa”).
Claim 13:
Song and Sorenson fail to expressly disclose the region of interest including an abnormal shadow.
Niwa discloses:
wherein the region of interest is a region including an abnormal shadow (see paragraph [0005]). Niwa teaches the region of interest in the image is an abnormal shadow.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by Song and Sorenson to include the region of interest being an abnormal shadow for the purpose of efficiently identifying regions of interest and shadows, as taught by Niwa.
Pertinent Art
WO2002042875A2 – teaches identifying medical findings in images but does not teaches the evaluation index and values.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see REM, filed 8/24/26, with respect to the rejections of claims 1,3-8, 10-18 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new grounds of rejection is made in view of Song and Sorenson.
Claims Rejection under 35 USC 103
Applicant argues Applicant respectfully submits that the combination of cited references fails to render obvious the feature "determine, for each of the plurality of regions of interest, whether to include the finding derived for the corresponding region of interest as a description in the medical document based on whether the evaluation value of the evaluation index derived for the corresponding region of interest is equal to or greater than a threshold value; generate the medical document by composing text including only the description of the finding for at least one of the plurality of regions of interest whose evaluation value is equal to or greater than the threshold value among the plurality of regions of interest" in claim 1.
The Examiner agrees and the Hitoshi reference has been withdrawn from the rejection of Claims 1, 17 and 18.
The Examiner introduced, Sorenson, to teach the argued limitation. See the above rejection of Claims 1, 17 and 18. Thus, the combination of Song and Sorenson teaches the argued limitations.
Applicant argues the priority degree in Hitoshi merely affects how lesion information is visually presented after the lesion information has already been generated. The priority degree in Hitoshi is not used to determine whether the finding corresponding to a lesion should be included in the textual content of a medical document. The Examiner agrees. The Hitoshi reference is no longer used to the newly added limitations of Claims 1, 17 and 18.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIONNA M BURKE whose telephone number is (571)270-7259. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8a-4p.
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, Stephen Hong can be reached at (571)272-4124. 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.
/TIONNA M BURKE/Examiner, Art Unit 2178 9/17/26
Prosecution Insights