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 Applicants Arguments/Remarks
In light of the applicants amendment to the title, the title objection is now moot.
In regards to the applicants remarks that Tsukagoshi does not disclose the newly amended language, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Tsukagoshi teaches cause a display to display the medical image ([0107] “the display control function 37c causes a display to display a virtual subject image”) on which a plurality of anatomical landmarks corresponding to the detected anatomical positions are superimposed; ([0065] “In FIG. 4A and FIG. 4B, landmarks are arranged two-dimensionally; however, in practice, the landmarks are arranged three-dimensionally.” ) Previously cited claim 2 rejection has also been incorporated into independent claim 1 where the rejection using prior art Tsukagoshi remains the same. Tsukagoshi displays the detected landmarks superimposed over a displayed image of the patient and then based on selected groups, displays only the selected group of narrowed down landmarks.
In regards to new claim 11 which incorporates the indicated allowable subject matter of dependent claim 3, claim 11 is allowed.
Claim Interpretation
Claims 1 and 3-9 require processing circuitry with a particular configuration. This is described at paragraph 135 of the specification. [0135] “various types of circuitry, such as an application-specific integrated circuit (ASIC), a programmable logic device (e.g., a simple programmable logic device (SPLD), a complex programmable logic device (CPLD), or a field programmable gate array (FPGA))”. Claims to circuity are not generally treated as means-plus-function language, but instead are understood to be hardware elements. See MPEP 2181: “Mass. Inst. of Tech., 462 F.3d at 1355-1356, 80 USPQ2d at 1332 (the court found the recitation of "aesthetic correction circuitry" sufficient to avoid pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, paragraph 6, treatment because the term circuit, combined with a description of the function of the circuit, connoted sufficient structure to one of ordinary skill in the art.)”
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 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tsukagoshi et al. (US20170319164, hereinafter “Tsukagoshi”)
Claim 1. (Currently Amended) Tsukagoshi teaches A medical information processing apparatus comprising processing circuitry (abstract “processing circuitry”) configured to:
acquire a medical image; ([0031] “collecting pieces of X-ray CT image data for each subject.”) detect anatomical positions from the acquired medical image; ([0062] “detects the anatomical landmark” and [0062] “detects a plurality of sites in the subject included in the three-dimensional image data.”) cause a display to display the medical image ([0107] “the display control function 37c causes a display to display a virtual subject image”) on which a plurality of anatomical landmarks corresponding to the detected anatomical positions are superimposed; ([0065] “In FIG. 4A and FIG. 4B, landmarks are arranged two-dimensionally; however, in practice, the landmarks are arranged three-dimensionally.” ) based on narrow-down information that has been input, ([0028] “select at least one group of the groups based on set examination information and a type of scan to be performed.”)
narrow down the displayed plurality ([0087] “The detecting function 37a selects at least one group of the plurality of groups”) of anatomical landmarks ([0087] “at least one group based on the anatomical landmarks corresponding to the selected group.”) to one or more anatomical landmarks ([0083] “anatomical landmarks are allocated to a group 1 (position), a group 2 (internal organs), a group 3 (bones), a group 4 (blood vessels), and a group 5 (nerves).”) to be displayed; ([0136] “The display control function 37c control to output the information indicating the detected site.”) and
cause the display to display the medical image on which the one or more narrowed-down anatomical landmarks are superimposed. ([0145] “causes to display the virtual subject image in which only the right lung is highlighted, as illustrated in the left diagram in FIG. 17.” )
Claim 9. (Currently Amended) Tsukagoshi teaches The medical information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to perform,
if a difference is detected ([0063] “inaccurate landmark”) between the medical image and a past medical image corresponding to the medical image, ([0063] “The detecting function 37a compares a position of the landmark extracted from the volume data with a three-dimensional position of the anatomical landmark in the information such as in a textbook,” It is understood that landmark information in a textbook is the same as the claimed past medical image ) the narrowing down in such a manner that one or more anatomical landmarks located within a predetermined range from a position of the difference ([0063] “removes an inaccurate landmark from the landmarks extracted from the volume data to optimize the positions of the landmarks extracted from the volume data.”) are displayed. ([0136] “The display control function 37c control to output the information indicating the detected site.”)
Claim 10. (Currently Amended) The method herein has been executed and performed by the system of claim 1 and is likewise rejected
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 4-6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsukagoshi et al. (US20170319164, hereinafter “Tsukagoshi”) and in view of Seidnitzer et al ( US20220351839, hereinafter “Seidnitzer”)
Claim 4. (Currently Amended) Tsukagoshi teaches The medical information processing apparatus according to claim 1, further comprising:
Tsukagoshi does not explicitly teach a first memory configured to store the narrow-down information by an identifier of a user, wherein
the processing circuitry is further configured to perform the narrowing down in such a manner that, if the identifier is input, the narrow-down information is read from the first memory based on the identifier, and one or more anatomical landmarks corresponding to the read narrow-down information are displayed.
Seidnitzer teaches a first memory configured to store ([0217] “Units and/or devices according to one or more example embodiments may also include one or more storage devices. The one or more storage devices may be tangible or non-transitory computer-readable storage media, such as random access memory (RAM)… and/or any other like data storage mechanism capable of storing and recording data”) the narrow-down information by an identifier of a user, ([0138] “secondary information may comprise an ID of the user”) wherein
the processing circuitry is further configured to perform the narrowing down in such a manner that, if the identifier is input, the narrow-down information is read from the first memory based on the identifier, ([0176] “generic body model KM may be invoked for example based on the patient data PD and adapted based on the patient data PD”) and one or more anatomical landmarks corresponding to the read narrow-down information are displayed. ([0176] “For example, a certain level of detail DS1, DS2, DS3 may relate to the lung of the patient, while a comparatively more general level of detail DS1, DS2, DS3 represents the entire body of the patient, and a comparatively finer level of detail DS1, DS2, DS3 is directed to a right or left lung.”)
It would have been obvious to persons of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tsukagoshi to have anatomy selection based on user ID as taught by Seidnitzer to arrive at the claimed invention discussed above. The motivation for the proposed modification would have been so that (Seidnitzer [0007] “a diagnostic assessment of a patient can be structured in order thereby to improve accessibility to the examination information relevant to a diagnostic assessment task”)
Claim 5. (Currently Amended) Tsukagoshi teaches The medical information processing apparatus according to claim 1, further comprising:
Tsukagoshi does not explicitly teach a second memory configured to store, by an identifier of a user, a diagnosis and treatment department relating to image reading by the user, wherein
the processing circuitry is further configured to perform the narrowing down in such a manner that one or more anatomical landmarks corresponding to the diagnosis and treatment department in the second memory are displayed based on the input identifier.
Seidnitzer teaches a second memory configured to store, ([0217] “Units and/or devices according to one or more example embodiments may also include one or more storage devices. The one or more storage devices may be tangible or non-transitory computer-readable storage media, such as random access memory (RAM)… and/or any other like data storage mechanism capable of storing and recording data”) by an identifier of a user, ([0062] “diagnostic assessment task may be derived for example from user information about the user”) a diagnosis and treatment department ([0070] “naming of the diagnosis”) relating to image reading by the user, wherein
the processing circuitry is further configured to perform the narrowing down in such a manner that one or more anatomical landmarks ([0068] “the anatomical position or anatomical positions is or are accentuated in the visualization image by highlighting. … the highlightings are stored by a function which enables the user to access the associated examination information and have at least part of the associated examination information displayed in particular in the user interface.”) corresponding to the diagnosis and treatment department in the second memory are displayed based on the input identifier. ([0070] “metadata which is derived from the examination information and/or the patient data for the purpose of producing the synopsis. The synopsis may for example comprise one or more attributes, which attributes characterize the examination information. The attributes may for example comprise a … a brief summary of the examination information (e.g. the naming of the diagnosis or a chosen therapy)”)
It would have been obvious to persons of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tsukagoshi to have diagnosis information associated to the User information as taught by Seidnitzer to arrive at the claimed invention discussed above. The motivation for the proposed modification would have been so that (Seidnitzer [0007] “a diagnostic assessment of a patient can be structured in order thereby to improve accessibility to the examination information relevant to a diagnostic assessment task”)
Claim 6. (Currently Amended) Tsukagoshi teaches The medical information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein
the processing circuitry is further configured to:
Tsukagoshi does not explicitly teach perform, in response to inputting of an enlargement instruction, the narrowing down in such a manner that the anatomical landmarks to be displayed are increased in number; and
cause the display to perform enlargement of the medical image based on the enlargement instruction.
Seidnitzer teaches perform, in response to inputting of an enlargement instruction, ([0183] “The interaction with the body model KM may comprise, … zooming”) the narrowing down in such a manner that the anatomical landmarks to be displayed are increased in number; ([0183] “levels of detail DS1, DS2, DS3.” Fig. 4 is an enlargement instruction which displays an increased number of anatomical landmarks as compared to fig. 3 ) and
cause the display to perform enlargement of the medical image based on the enlargement instruction. ([0183] “Zooming can happen e.g. continuously or by selecting a level of detail DS1, DS2, DS3”)
It would have been obvious to persons of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tsukagoshi to have zooming instruction which displays more anatomical landmarks when the image is zoomed in as taught by Seidnitzer to arrive at the claimed invention discussed above. The motivation for the proposed modification would have been so that (Seidnitzer [0007] “a diagnostic assessment of a patient can be structured in order thereby to improve accessibility to the examination information relevant to a diagnostic assessment task”)
Claim 8. (Currently Amended) Tsukagoshi teaches The medical information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to perform,
Tsukagoshi does not explicitly teach if a lesion is detected in the medical image, the narrowing down in such a manner that one or more anatomical landmarks located within a predetermined range from a position of the lesion are displayed.
Seidnitzer teaches if a lesion is detected in the medical image, ([0100] “detected a lesion in the lung tissue”) the narrowing down in such a manner that one or more anatomical landmarks located within a predetermined range from a position of the lesion are displayed. ([0100] “Based thereon, corresponding further examination information comprising at least the anatomical position and the pictogram attributes can then be generated automatically.”)
It would have been obvious to persons of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tsukagoshi to have if a lesion is detected then anatomical landmark positions are displayed as taught by Seidnitzer to arrive at the claimed invention discussed above. The motivation for the proposed modification would have been so that (Seidnitzer [0007] “a diagnostic assessment of a patient can be structured in order thereby to improve accessibility to the examination information relevant to a diagnostic assessment task”)
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsukagoshi et al. (US20170319164, hereinafter “Tsukagoshi”) and in view of Yanagida et al (US20150261915, hereinafter “Yanagida”)
Claim 7. (Currently Amended) Tsukagoshi teaches The medical information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein
the processing circuitry is further configured to perform,
Tsukagoshi does not explicitly teach if a cursor or at least one measurement point is displayed on the medical image, the narrowing down in such a manner that one or more anatomical landmarks located within a predetermined range from the displayed cursor or measurement point are displayed.
Yanagida teaches if a cursor or at least one measurement point is displayed on the medical image, ([0115] “such a display may be omitted or may be provided by mouse over or by placing a pointer or cursor thereon”) the narrowing down in such a manner that one or more anatomical landmarks located within a predetermined range from the displayed cursor or measurement point are displayed. ([0115] “anatomical positions are displayed on the anatomical chart with an imaging range image” and fig.9)
It would have been obvious to persons of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tsukagoshi to have anatomical landmarks displayed when the cursor is within a range of the points as taught by Yanagida to arrive at the claimed invention discussed above. The motivation for the proposed modification would have been so that (Yanagida [0073] “the user can easily grasp the result of analysis of the medical image”)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 3 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 11 is allowed.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure:
Her et al US20250005757 teaches anatomical landmarks on a medical image
Doctors of BC et al NPL “Guidelines for Electronic Medical Records and Role-Based Access” teaches various roles in medical software for data access.
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 OWAIS MEMON whose telephone number is (571)272-2168. The examiner can normally be reached M-F (7:00am - 4:00pm) CST.
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, Gregory Morse can be reached at (571) 272-3838. 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.
/OWAIS IQBAL MEMON/Examiner, Art Unit 2663
/GREGORY A MORSE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2698