DETAILED ACTION
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 Amendment
The amendment and written response filed 12/30/2025 were entered and considered.
Claims 1 and 17 were amended.
Claims 3 and 16 were cancelled.
Claims 1-2, 4-15 and 17-18 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-18 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 4-15 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Covington et al (“Covington” hereinafter, U.S. Publication No. 2022/0037019 A1).
As per claim 1, Covington discloses a medical image processing apparatus (figure 1) comprising: a processor (paragraph [0033]: “processor”), the processor being configured to perform: an image acquisition process of acquiring a medical image (paragraph [0055]: “A medical scan can include imaging data corresponding to a CT scan, x-ray, MM, PET scan, Ultrasound, EEG, mammogram, or other type of radiological scan or medical scan taken of an anatomical region of a human body”); a region information acquisition process of acquiring region information regarding a plurality of regions of interest included in the medical image (paragraphs [0064] & [0067]: “image quality threshold” is used to determine “anatomical regions”, such “anatomical regions” are the claimed “regions of interest” on a medical image as evidenced in co-pending publication U.S. 2022/0215915A1, figure 13Q; the examiner notes it is possible to make a 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection even if the reference does not itself teach one of ordinary skill how to practice the invention, i.e., how to make or use the article disclosed. If the reference teaches every claimed element of the article, secondary evidence, such as other patents or publications, can be cited to show public possession of the method of making and/or using. In re Donohue, 766 F.2d at 533, 226 USPQ at 621. See MPEP § 2131.01 for more information on 35 U.S.C. 102 rejections using secondary references to show that the primary reference contains an "enabling disclosure."), the region information including positions and category classifications of the plurality of regions of interest (see figure 12F for a plurality of ROIs at different positions and with different classifications); a graphic information acquisition process of acquiring a plurality of pieces of graphic information that indicate the category classifications of the plurality of regions of interest on the medical image; wherein each of the pieces of graphic information is constituted by text information that indicates a corresponding one of the category classifications of anatomical regions (see figure 12F for text information); a superimposed-position determination process of determining superimposed positions of the plurality of pieces of graphic information to be displayed by the display control process, on the basis of a relative positional relationship between the plurality of regions of interest such that at least one of the plurality of pieces of graphic information does not overlap any of the plurality of regions of interest and the plurality of pieces of graphic information do not overlap each other (see figure 12F for graphical information displayed and super-imposed with positional relationship); and a display control process of superimposing the plurality of pieces of graphic information on the medical image on the basis of the superimposed positions and causing a display unit to display the plurality of pieces of graphic information (see figure 12F for displaying graphical).
As per claim 2, Covington discloses wherein the processor is configured to perform a region information generation process of generating the region information by detecting the plurality of regions of interest included in the medical image and estimating the category classifications of the plurality of detected regions of interest (paragraphs [0064] & [0067]).
As per claim 4, Covington discloses wherein at least one of the plurality of regions of interest is an annotation drawn by a user on the medical image (paragraph [0038]: “the identified abnormality can be circled”).
As per claim 5, Covington discloses wherein in the superimposed-position determination process, a superimposed position of a piece of graphic information of at least one region of interest among the plurality of regions of interest is determined on the basis of a position of another region of interest among the plurality of regions of interest (see figure 12F).
As per claim 6, Covington discloses wherein in the superimposed-position determination process, a superimposed position of a piece of graphic information of at least one region of interest among the plurality of regions of interest is determined on the basis of a superimposed position of a piece of graphic information of another region of interest among the plurality of regions of interest (see figure 12F).
As per claim 7, Covington discloses wherein in the image acquisition process, a plurality of successive time-series medical images are acquired (see image data 410 in figure 7B).
As per claim 8, Covington discloses wherein in the superimposed-position determination process, among the plurality of medical images, a superimposed position of graphic information in a current medical image is determined on the basis of a superimposed position of the graphic information in a past medical image (paragraphs [0036] & [0039]: the user may use past medical image data to detect abnormality data for growth tracking).
As per claim 9, Covington discloses wherein in the superimposed-position determination process, as the superimposed position of the graphic information in the current medical image, a position in a region that is within a distance of a first threshold value from the superimposed position of the graphic information in the past medical image is chosen (paragraph [0036]: longitudinal data).
As per claim 10, Covington discloses wherein in the display control process, a leader line that extends up to a superimposed position of a piece of graphic information of at least one region of interest among the plurality of regions of interest is displayed (see figures 12D and 12F for arrow lines).
As per claim 11, Covington discloses wherein the processor is configured to perform an inclusion relationship acquisition process of acquiring inclusion relationship information about the plurality of regions of interest on the basis of the region information, and in the superimposed-position determination process, the superimposed positions of the plurality of pieces of graphic information are determined on the basis of the inclusion relationship information. (see figure 12F).
As per claim 12, Covington discloses wherein in the superimposed-position determination process, whether to display a leader line for at least one region of interest among the plurality of regions of interest is determined on the basis of the inclusion relationship information to switch between display and non-display (see figures 12F-12I).
As per claim 13, Covington discloses wherein in the display control process, pieces of graphic information of regions of interest having an inclusion relationship are displayed in a nested form that indicates the inclusion relationship, on the basis of the inclusion relationship information (see figures 12F-12I).
As per claim 14, Covington discloses wherein in the display control process, pieces of information that indicate bounds of the regions of interest are displayed on the basis of the region information (see figure 12F for region size).
As per claim 15, Covington discloses wherein the pieces of information indicating the bounds of the regions of interest are bounding boxes, and in the display control process, the pieces of graphic information are displayed so as to correspond to the bounding boxes (see figure 12D for bounding circle, and see figure 13Q in co-pending publication U.S. 2022/0215915A1 for box).
As per claim 17, see explanation in claim 1.
As per claim 18, see explanation in claim 1, the examiner notes Covington’s system is a computer-like system, which inherently includes a non-transitory computer-readable medium.
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 TOM Y LU whose telephone number is (571)272-7393. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9AM - 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, Matthew Bella can be reached at (571) 272 - 7778. 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.
/TOM Y LU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2667
Prosecution Insights