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 .
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.
Response to Arguments
This is in response to applicant’s amendment/response filed on January 5th 2026 which have been entered and made of record.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 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.
Regarding the remaining arguments applicant argues with respect to the amended claim language, which is fully addressed in the prior art rejections set forth below.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 13-15, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okabe et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication 20160203286 A1 (hereinafter Okabe) in view of Koyanagi et al. Japanese Application JP 2007215685 A (hereinafter Koyanagi).
Regarding claim 1, Okabe teaches a medical information processing apparatus comprising: (Medical Support Server Apparatus 11, Para. 0054)
at least one processor (Central Processing Unit, Para. 0071);
and a memory (Memory 31, Para. 0073) coupled to the at least one processor (CPU 32, Para. 0071), the memory having instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the medical information processing apparatus (Medical Support Server Apparatus 11, Para. 0054) to function as:
an obtaining unit (CPU 32 in Medical Support Server Apparatus 11, Para. 0071) configured to obtain a processing result of an original image (Medical Care Data includes Data from Image Server 22, Para. 0058) that is a medical image (Examination Image 25, Para. 0060), the processing result being obtained through processing performed in an external processing apparatus; (The image received from the image server 22 can be a processed images that have been edited and uploaded back to the image server by another computer, Para. 0060, 0087, 0197 Hence, the image obtained can either be an original image (Unedited Image) or a processed image. (Edited Image))
and an output unit (CPU 32 in Medical Support Server Apparatus 11, Para. 0071) configured to output the processing result (Updated Medical Care Data, Para. 0197) to an image management server (Image Server 22, Para. 0058), based on a setting (Retrieval Request or Automatically Sent, Para. 0197) as to whether to enable output of the processing result to the image management server, (Image Server 22 apart of Server Group 13, Para. 0058 and 0197)
wherein the output unit (CPU 32 in Medical Support Server Apparatus 11, Para. 0071) is configured to
in a case (Medical Examination, Para. 0098) including capturing of the original image is not ended by an obtained timing of the processing result, output the processing result to the image management server in response to an end of the examination, (After medical examination the result of the examination is uploaded S14, Para. 0098) . Okabe teaches the results of the medical examination are uploaded after the medical examination, para. 0098. The results are uploaded to an image server 22, para. 0098. The processing result is the results of the medical examination. Okabe doesn’t explicitly teach how the examination is ended. However, Okabe’s apparatus/system utilizes a Graphical User Interface where the user (Medical Staff) can input commands to the apparatus/system, para. 0074. As well as medical care/examinations are performed by the medical staff and the medical staff operates Okabe’s apparatus, para. 0005. Thus, Okabe teaches in a case where an examination including capturing of the original image is not ended by an obtained timing of the processing result, output the processing result to the image management server in response to an end of the examination. Wherein the examination is ended by an operator's operation.
in a case (Medical Examination, Para. 0098) is ended by the obtained timing (Receiving Image Result, Para. 0098) of the processing result, output the processing result (Examination Image 25, Para. 0098)to the image management server (Image Server 22, Para. 0098) at the obtained timing of the processing result, (Para. 0098) Okabe also teaches in a case where the medical examination is an imaging examination, the examination image 25 is uploaded as the result of the examination to the image server 22, para. 0098. In this case Okabe does not explicitly teach when the examination is ended, just the image is uploaded as the result of the examination. The time in which the result is uploaded can be when the result was received as any modification to medical care data can be automatically transmitted to the server, Para. 0197 Thus, Okabe teaches in a case where the examination is ended by the obtained timing of the processing result, output the processing result to the image management server at the obtained timing of the processing result. Wherein the obtained timing is a time when the obtaining unit obtains the processing result.
wherein the obtained timing (Receiving Image Result, Para. 0098) is a time when the obtaining unit (CPU 32 in Medical Support Server Apparatus 11, Para. 0071) obtains the processing result (Examination Result or Updated Medical Data), (Para. 0197).
However, Okabe fails to teach:
where a setting to enable output of the processing result to the image management server is made and
and in a case where the setting to enable output of the processing result to the image management server is not made, not output the processing,
Okabe and Koyanagi are analogous to the claimed invention because both of them are in the same field of medical information processing.
Koyanagi teaches:
in a case where a setting (Send to DICOM Server Setting, Page 11 Para. 3 and Page 12 Para. 6) to enable output of the processing result to the image management server (DICOM Server or Medical Image Storage Server, Page 11 Para. 3) is made and where an examination including capturing of the original image is not ended by an obtained timing of the processing result (The examination is ended by the specified Examination End Condition Setting, Page 4 Para. 4.)output the processing result (Image Data) to the image management server (DICOM Server or Medical Image Storage Server, Page 11 Para. 3) in response to an end of the examination (Examination End Condition Setting, Page 5 Para. 4) The examination can be ended by the user selecting send to DICOM Server, which has been set to Yes, Page 12 Page 12 Para. 6. The examination can also be ended by any of the specified Examination End Conditions Settings or other Setting Conditions Suitable to the Hospital Network System, Page 20 Para. 4)
in a case where the setting(Send to DICOM Server Setting, Page 11 Para. 3 and Page 12 Para. 6) to enable output of the processing result to the image management server (DICOM Server or Medical Image Storage Server, Page 11 Para. 3) is made and where the examination is ended by the obtained timing (The examination can be ended several ways at the obtained timing of the image data. The Maximum inspection time end condition (Page 10 Para. 5 to Para. 11 Para. 1) could be set to 0. Resulting in no time being allotted for inspection of the medical image and outputting the image to the server immediately. The user could also utilize the send to DICOM Server setting at any time to send the images to the server and end the examination. The time they choose to send the images can be at the time they obtain the images.) of the processing result (Image Data) , output the processing result to the image management server (DICOM Server or Medical Image Storage Server, Page 11 Para. 3) at the obtained timing of the processing result (Image Data),
and in a case where the setting(Send to DICOM Server Setting, Page 11 Para. 3 and Page 12 Para. 6) to enable output of the processing result to the image management server(DICOM Server or Medical Image Storage Server, Page 11 Para. 3) is not made (Setting the Send to DICOM Server Setting to “Yes” sends the image data to the server, Para. 3 and Page 12 Para. 6. Koyanagi’s system is not limited in the conditions present, thus Setting the Send to DICOM Server Setting to “NO” would not send the image data to the server. As well as if a user has to manually send the image data, they could choose to not send the image data.), not output the processing result to the image management server at the obtained timing of the processing result (Image Data),
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Okabe’s Output Unit to incorporate Koyanagi’s End Examination Condition Settings. Since doing so would provide the benefit of increasing the flexibility of the system by having different modalities for ending the examination that can be preset.
Regarding Claim 13, Okabe teaches the medical information processing apparatus according to Claim 1, wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor(Central Processing Unit, Para. 0071), further cause the medical information processing apparatus to function as:
a transmission unit (Medical Support Server Apparatus 11, Para. 0057) configured to transmit the original image (Examination Images 25, Para. 0060) to the external processing apparatus (Client Terminal 12, Para. 12 or Image Server 22, Para. 0098),
wherein the transmission unit (Medical Support Server Apparatus 11, Para. 0057) is configured to, in a case where a plurality of external processing apparatuses including the external processing apparatus (Server Group 13, Para. 0053-0054) are present, transmit a medical image to an external processing apparatus for which a setting of making a processing request (Retrieval Request or Automatically Sent, Para. 0058 and 0197) is set in advance among the plurality of external processing apparatuses. (Examination images can be sent to another computer based on either a request for them or automatically when the examination is finished. Para.0058 and 0098)
Regarding claim 14, Okabe teaches the medical information processing apparatus according to Claim 1, wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor(Central Processing Unit, Para. 0071), further cause the medical information processing apparatus to function as:
a transmission unit (Medical Support Server Apparatus 11, Para. 0057) configured to transmit the original image (Examination Images 25, Para. 0060) to the external processing apparatus (Client Terminal 12, Para. 12 or Image Server 22, Para. 0098),
wherein the transmission unit (Medical Support Server Apparatus 11, Para. 0057) is configured to transmit information (EMR Server 21, Para. 0059) on content of processing to be performed (Retrieval Request, Para. 0058-0059) on a medical image along with the original image (Examination Images 25, Para. 0060),
and the obtaining unit (CPU 32 in Medical Support Server Apparatus 11, Para. 0071) is configured to obtain a processed image (Medical Care Data includes Data from Image Server 22, Para. 0058) generated through the processing performed, based on the content of processing transmitted by the transmission unit (Medical Support Server Apparatus 11, Para. 0057), in the external processing apparatus (Client Terminal 12, Para. 12 or Image Server 22, Para. 0098). (The Medical Support Server Apparatus 11 can be used to retrieve processed medical images as well as request them. Para. 0058-0059)
Regarding claim 15, Okabe teaches the medical information processing apparatus according to Claim 1, wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor(Central Processing Unit, Para. 0071), further cause the medical information processing apparatus to function as:
a transmission unit (Medical Support Server Apparatus 11, Para. 0057) configured to transmit the original image (Examination Images 25, Para. 0060) to the external processing apparatus (Client Terminal 12, Para. 12 or Image Server 22, Para. 0098),
wherein the transmission unit (Medical Support Server Apparatus 11, Para. 0057) is configured to transmit the original image (Examination Images 25, Para. 0060) to the external processing apparatus (Client Terminal 12, Para. 12 or Image Server 22, Para. 0098), at a generation timing of the original image. (The data and time of uploading the Examination Images 25 is tracked, Para. 0066. The images can be uploaded at various times included once the image has been captured or at a later time, Para. 0098-0099.)
Regarding claim 17, Okabe teaches the medical information processing apparatus according to Claim 1, wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor(Central Processing Unit, Para. 0071), further cause the medical information processing apparatus to function as:
a transmission unit (Medical Support Server Apparatus 11, Para. 0057) configured to transmit the original image (Examination Images 25, Para. 0060) to the external processing apparatus (Client Terminal 12, Para. 12 or Image Server 22, Para. 0098);
and a setting unit (Medical Support Server Apparatus 11, Para. 0057) configured to make a setting (Processing Request, Delivery Request, Edit Request, Retrieval Request, Para. 0078-0080, 0084 and 0152) as to whether to enable transmission of a medical image to the external processing apparatus (Client Terminal 12, Para. 12 or Image Server 22, Para. 0098), (Requests include the medical staff’s id along with an authentication key are required to approve requests and the information provided to the staff are tailored to their id, Para. 0079 and 0110-0112.)
wherein the transmission unit (Medical Support Server Apparatus 11, Para. 0057) is configured to transmit the original image (Examination Images 25, Para. 0060) to the external processing apparatus (Client Terminal 12, Para. 12 or Image Server 22, Para. 0098) in a case where transmission of a medical image is enabled by the setting unit. (When a request has been approved through a staff’s id, Para. 0079 and 0110-0112.)
Regarding claim 18, Okabe teaches the medical information processing apparatus according to Claim 1, wherein the output unit (CPU 32 in Medical Support Server Apparatus 11, Para. 0071) is configured to:
in a case where the examination (Medical Examination, Para. 0098) including capturing of the original image (Examination Images 25, Para. 0060) is displayed on a display unit (Client Terminal 12, Para. 12 or Image Server 22, Para. 0098) when a processed image included in the processing result is obtained by the obtaining unit (CPU 32 in Medical Support Server Apparatus 11, Para. 0071), output the processed image to the image management server (Image Server 22, Para. 0058) in response to an output instruction, (Delivery Request or Edit Request, Para. 0082)
and in a case where the examination (Medical Examination, Para. 0098) is not displayed on the display unit (Client Terminal 12, Para. 12 or Image Server 22, Para. 0098) when the processed image is obtained by the obtaining unit (CPU 32 in Medical Support Server Apparatus 11, Para. 0071), output the processed image to the image management server (Image Server 22, Para. 0058) at an obtained timing of the processed image by the obtaining unit. (Para. 0098)
Regarding method claim 19, is drawn to the method of using the corresponding apparatus claimed in claim 1. Therefore, method claim 19 corresponding to apparatus claim 1 is rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as used above.
Regarding claim 20, Okabe teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium (Storage Device 30 and Memory 31) storing a program for causing a computer to execute the medical information processing method according to Claim 19. (Para. 0072-0073)
Claim(s) 2, 5-11, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okabe et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication 20160203286 A1 (hereinafter Okabe) in view of Koyanagi et al. Japanese Application JP 2007215685 A (hereinafter Koyanagi) in further view of Ginsburg et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication 20220084645 A1 (hereinafter Ginsburg).
Regarding claim 2, Okabe and Koyanagi fail to explicitly teach the medical information processing apparatus according to Claim 1, wherein the processing result includes an image generated from the original image through the processing performed in the external processing apparatus.
Okabe, Koyanagi, and Ginsburg are analogous to the claimed invention because all of them are in the same field of displaying and processing medical information.
Ginsburg teaches the medical information processing apparatus (Data Command Center Visual Display System, Para. 0022) according to Claim 1, wherein the processing result includes an image generated from the original image (Edited Patient Images, Para. 0521) through the processing performed in the external processing apparatus. (In-context Image Management System, Para. 0521) (Multiple images can be retrieved and displayed that are associated with the patient. Para. 0511 Hence, an original image and a processed(edited) image can be retrieved together through shared data, Para. 0292.) Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Okabe’s Medical Support Server Apparatus altered by Koyanagi’s End Conditions to incorporate Ginsburg’s Data Command Center Visual Display System. Since doing so would provide the benefit of retrieving multiple images associated with a patient and keeping all data associated with a patient together. Often patients will have different images from the same examination that include separate angles and other imaged regions of interest.
Regarding claim 5, Okabe and Koyanagi fail to teach the medical information processing apparatus according to Claim 1, wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, further cause the medical information processing apparatus to function as:
a display control unit configured to display a thumbnail of the original image and a thumbnail of a processed image included in the processing result on a display unit,
wherein the display control unit is configured to display the thumbnail of the processed image in a different display style from the thumbnail of the original image to make the processed image identifiable as an image that has been subjected to the processing in the external processing apparatus.
However, Ginsburg teaches the medical information processing apparatus according to Claim 1, wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor (Para. 0008), further cause the medical information processing apparatus (Data Command Center Visual Display System, Para. 0022) to function as:
a display control unit (Data Command Center 001, Para. 0177) configured to display a thumbnail of the original image and a thumbnail of a processed image included in the processing result on a display unit, (Display All Images in a Column, Para. 0178 and 0179)
wherein the display control unit is configured to display the thumbnail of the processed image in a different display style from the thumbnail of the original image to make the processed image identifiable (Display All Images in a Column, Para. 0178 and 0179) as an image that has been subjected to the processing in the external processing apparatus. (A user is able to modify images through various means of highlighting, rotating, resizing, tagging and etc... Para. 0511. Thumbnails are visual representations of the images and can show edits that have been made to the images, Para. 0513. The user can also attach sticky note icons anywhere in the program to provide information, such as on images or thumbnails, Para. 0235. Therefore, a thumbnail associated to an edited image can have a different display style by having the addition of a sticky note icon on or near the thumbnail. As well as the thumbnail itself can display the edited image, which would be different from the original image thumbnail.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Okabe’s Medical Support Server Apparatus altered by Koyanagi’s End Conditions to incorporate Ginsburg’s Data Command Center Visual Display System’s Thumbnails. Since doing so would provide the benefit of having thumbnails associated with the medical images that can be displayed alongside other thumbnails or medical data, which allow the user to identify images at a glance. (Ginsburg, Para. 0513) As well as provide a system that incorporates the ability to modify thumbnails and images with various flexible options, to increase user ability of the system.
Regarding claim 6, Okabe and Koyanagi fail to teach the medical information processing apparatus according to Claim 1, wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, further cause the medical information processing apparatus to function as:
a display control unit configured to display a thumbnail of a processed image included in the processing result on a display unit,
wherein the display control unit is configured to
display an object indicating that the processed image is an image that has been subjected to the processing in the external processing apparatus,
and display the thumbnail of the processed image and the object in any display style of superimposed display, parallel display, and composite display.
However, Ginsburg teaches the medical information processing apparatus according to Claim 1, wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor (Para. 0008), further cause the medical information processing apparatus (Data Command Center Visual Display System, Para. 0022 or Data Command Center 001, Para. 0177) to function as:
a display control unit (Data Command Center 001, Para. 0177) configured to display a thumbnail of a processed image included in the processing result on a display unit, (Display All Images in a Column, Para. 0178 and 0179)
wherein the display control unit (Data Command Center 001, Para. 0177) is configured to
display an object (Icons or Sticky Note Icons) indicating that the processed image is an image that has been subjected to the processing in the external processing apparatus, (Para. 0180, 0235, and 0520. These icons can be modified, so they can be used to show an image has been processed.)
and display the thumbnail of the processed image and the object (Icons or Sticky Note Icons) in any display style of superimposed display, parallel display, and composite display. (Para. 0180, 0514, and 0520. Icons are used throughout the display and are displayed along with other information. These icons can be moved by the user to a location the user seeks, Para. 0211 and 0235.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Okabe’s Medical Support Server Apparatus altered by Koyanagi’s End Conditions to incorporate Ginsburg’s Data Command Center Visual Display System’s Thumbnails and Icons. Since doing so would provide the benefit of having thumbnails associated with icons. That can provide the user with quick and easily understood information about the image, without the user having to inspect the image the thumbnail is a representation of. Thumbnails and Icons being used to convey information through a display is typical in design.
Regarding claim 7, Okabe and Koyanagi fail to teaches the medical information processing apparatus according to Claim 1, wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, further cause the medical information processing apparatus to function as:
a display control configured to display a thumbnail of a processed image included in the processing result on a display unit,
wherein the obtaining unit is configured to obtain information on the external processing apparatus that has performed the processing for the processed image,
and the display control unit is configured to
display an object indicating the external processing apparatus that has performed the processing for the processed image, based on the information on the external processing apparatus,
and display the thumbnail of the processed image and the object in any display style of superimposed display, parallel display, and composite display.
However, Ginsburg teaches the medical information processing apparatus according to Claim 1, wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor (Para. 0008), further cause the medical information processing apparatus (Data Command Center Visual Display System, Para. 0022 or Data Command Center 001, Para. 0177) to function as:
a display control unit (Data Command Center 001, Para. 0177) configured to display a thumbnail of a processed image included in the processing result on a display unit, (Display All Images in a Column, Para. 0178 and 0179)
wherein the obtaining unit (Computing Device 200, Para. 0137) is configured to obtain information on the external processing apparatus (Patient Database or Server, Para. 0035) that has performed the processing for the processed image,
and the display control unit (Data Command Center 001, Para. 0177) is configured to
display an object (Icons or Sticky Note Icons, Para. 0180, 0514, and 0520.) indicating the external processing apparatus that has performed the processing for the processed image, based on the information on the external processing apparatus, (The Medical Records Dashboard 400 displays various information belonging to a patient based on their medical records, Para. 0153.These medical records can track information about the patient that have been processed or performed at other locations, such as results from external data sources that can be displayed in icons, Para. 0157. Therefore, using an icon to display what process and where the process was done for each image is possible in Ginsburg’s System.)
and display the thumbnail of the processed image and the object (Icons or Sticky Note Icons) in any display style of superimposed display, parallel display, and composite display. (Para. 0180, 0514, and 0520. Icons are used throughout the display and are displayed along with other information. These icons can be moved by the user to a location the user seeks, Para. 0211 and 0235.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Okabe’s Medical Support Server Apparatus altered by Koyanagi’s End Conditions to incorporate Ginsburg’s Data Command Center Visual Display System’s Thumbnails and Icons. Since doing so would provide the benefit of having thumbnails associated with icons. That can provide the user with quick and easily understood information about the image, without the user having to inspect the image the thumbnail is a representation of. Thumbnails and Icons being used to convey information through a display is typical in design.
Regarding claim 8, Okabe and Koyanagi fail to teach the medical information processing apparatus according to Claim 1, wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, further cause the medical information processing apparatus to function as:
a display control unit configured to display a thumbnail of a processed image included in the processing result and an object on a display unit, the object indicating content of the processing that has been performed for the processed image,
wherein the obtaining unit is configured to obtain information on the content of the processing that has been performed for the processed image,
and the display control unit is configured to display the thumbnail of the processed image and the object in any display style of superimposed display, parallel display, and composite display.
However, Ginsburg teaches the medical information processing apparatus according to Claim 1, wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor (Para. 0008), further cause the medical information processing apparatus (Data Command Center Visual Display System, Para. 0022 or Data Command Center 001, Para. 0177) to function as:
a display control unit (Data Command Center 001, Para. 0177) configured to display a thumbnail of a processed image included in the processing result and an object (Icons or Sticky Note Icons) on a display unit, the object indicating content of the processing that has been performed for the processed image, (As mentioned before, a user can choose to move an icon wherever they want and can determine what information the Icon holds, Para. 180, 0211, 0235, 0514, and 0520.)
wherein the obtaining unit (Computing Device 200, Para. 0137) is configured to obtain information (Results from External Data Sources, Para. 0157) on the content of the processing that has been performed for the processed image, (The Medical Records Dashboard 400, displays various information belonging to a patient, based on their medical records, Para. 0153.These medical records can track information about the patient that have been processed or performed at other locations, such as results from external data sources that can be displayed in icons, Para. 0157.)
and the display control unit (Data Command Center 001, Para. 0177) is configured to display the thumbnail of the processed image and the object (Icons or Sticky Note Icons) in any display style of superimposed display, parallel display, and composite display. (Para. 0180, 0514, and 0520. Icons are used throughout the display and are displayed along with other information. The icons can be moved by the user to a location the user seeks, Para. 0211 and 0235.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Okabe’s Medical Support Server Apparatus altered by Koyanagi’s End Conditions to incorporate Ginsburg’s Data Command Center Visual Display System’s Thumbnails and Icons. Since doing so would provide the benefit of having thumbnails associated with icons. That can provide the user with quick and easily understood information about the image, without the user having to inspect the image the thumbnail is a representation of. Thumbnails and Icons being used to convey information through a display is typical in design.
Regarding claim 9, Okabe and Koyanagi fail to teach the medical information processing apparatus according to Claim 1, wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, further cause the medical information processing apparatus to function as:
a display control unit configured to display a thumbnail of the original image and a thumbnail of a processed image included in the processing result on a display unit,
wherein the display control unit is configured to display the thumbnail of the processed image in a more emphasized manner than the thumbnail of the original image.
However, Ginsburg teaches the medical information processing apparatus according to Claim 1, wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor (Para. 0008), further cause the medical information processing apparatus (Data Command Center Visual Display System, Para. 0022 or Data Command Center 001, Para. 0177) to function as:
a display control unit (Data Command Center 001, Para. 0177) configured to display a thumbnail of the original image and a thumbnail of a processed image included in the processing result on a display unit, (Display All Images in a Column, Para. 0178- 0179 and 0513)
wherein the display control unit (Data Command Center 001, Para. 0177) is configured to display the thumbnail of the processed image in a more emphasized manner than the thumbnail of the original image. (A user is able to modify images through various means of highlighting, rotating, resizing, tagging and etc... Para. 0511. Thumbnails are visual representations of the images and can show edits that have been made to the images, Para. 0513. The user can also attach sticky note icons anywhere in the program to provide information on the images or thumbnails, Para. 0235. Therefore, a thumbnail associated to an edited image can have a different display style by having the addition of a sticky note icon on or near the thumbnail. The thumbnail itself can display the edited image, which would be different from the original image thumbnail.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Okabe’s Medical Support Server Apparatus altered by Koyanagi’s End Conditions to incorporate Ginsburg’s Data Command Center Visual Display System’s Thumbnails. Since doing so would provide the benefit of having thumbnails associated with the medical images that can be displayed alongside other thumbnails or medical data. (Ginsburg, Para. 0513) As well as provide a system that incorporates the ability to modify thumbnails and images with various flexible options, to increase user ability of the system. Having distinct thumbnails for each image provides the user the ability to quickly understand what an image is about. The use of thumbnails in displays associating with images is a typical design choice.
Regarding claim 10, Okabe and Koyanagi fail to teach the medical information processing apparatus according to Claim 1, wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, further cause the medical information processing apparatus to function as:
a display control unit configured to display a thumbnail of the original image on a display unit,
wherein the display control unit is configured to
display an object indicating that the original image is an image to be subjected to the processing in the external processing apparatus,
and display the thumbnail of the original image and the object in any display style of superimposed display, parallel display, and composite display.
However, Ginsburg teaches the medical information processing apparatus according to Claim 1, wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor (Para. 0008), further cause the medical information processing apparatus (Data Command Center Visual Display System, Para. 0022 or Data Command Center 001, Para. 0177) to function as:
a display control unit (Data Command Center 001, Para. 0177) configured to display a thumbnail of the original image on a display unit, (Display All Images in a Column, Para. 0178- 0179 and 0513)
wherein the display control unit (Data Command Center 001, Para. 0177) is configured to
display an object (Icons or Sticky Note Icons, 0180, 0514, and 0520) indicating that the original image is an image to be subjected to the processing in the external processing apparatus, (The Medical Records Dashboard 400, displays various information belonging to a patient, based on their medical records, Para. 0153. These medical records can track information about the patient that have been processed or performed at other locations, such as results from external data sources that can be displayed in icons, Para. 0157.)
and display the thumbnail of the original image and the object (Icons or Sticky Note Icons) in any display style of superimposed display, parallel display, and composite display. (Para. 0180, 0514, and 0520. Icons are used throughout the display and are displayed along other information. The icons can be moved by the user to a location the user seeks, Para. 0211 and 0235.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Okabe’s Medical Support Server Apparatus altered by Koyanagi’s End Conditions to incorporate Ginsburg’s Data Command Center Visual Display System’s Thumbnails and Icons. Since doing so would provide the benefit of having thumbnails associated with icons. That can provide the user with quick and easily understood information about the image, without the user having to inspect the image the thumbnail is a representation of. Thumbnails and Icons being used to convey information through a display is typical in design.
Regarding claim 11, Okabe and Koyanagi fail to teach the medical information processing apparatus according to Claim 1, wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, further cause the medical information processing apparatus to function as:
a display control unit configured to display a thumbnail of the original image and a thumbnail of a processed image included in the processing result on a display;
and an association unit configured to associate the original image and the processed image with each other,
wherein the display control unit is configured to display, based on the association, the thumbnail of the original image and the thumbnail of the processed image on the display.
However, Ginsburg teaches the medical information processing apparatus according to Claim 1, wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor (Para. 0008), further cause the medical information processing apparatus (Data Command Center Visual Display System, Para. 0022 or Data Command Center 001, Para. 0177) to function as:
a display control unit (Data Command Center 001, Para. 0177) configured to display a thumbnail of the original image and a thumbnail of a processed image included in the processing result on a display unit; (Display All Images in a Column, Para. 0178- 0179 and 0513)
and an association unit (Medical Records Dashboard 400, Para. 0149) configured to associate the original image and the processed image with each other, (In medical systems, they track patient information by associating a patient with an ID, so all medical information for a patient can be associated with each other. The original image and processed image would be associated with each other by the metadata of the images and the examination the images are from, Para. 0159.)
wherein the display control unit (Data Command Center 001, Para. 0177) is configured to display, based on the association (Examination, Para. 0159-0160 and 0162), the thumbnail of the original image and the thumbnail of the processed image on the display unit. (Display All Images in a Column, Para. 0178- 0179 and 0513)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Okabe’s Medical Support Server Apparatus altered by Koyanagi’s End Conditions to incorporate Ginsburg’s Data Command Center Visual Display System’s Thumbnails. Since doing so would provide the benefit of having thumbnails associated with the medical images that can be displayed alongside other thumbnails or medical data. (Ginsburg, Para. 0513) All medical data associated with a patient is commonly link together, so when their data is retrieved all data important to the patient can be achieved easily and readily.
Regarding claim 16, Okabe and Koyanagi fail to teach the medical information processing apparatus according to Claim 1, wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, further cause the medical information processing apparatus to function as:
an accepting unit configured to accept an image editing instruction for a medical image from an operator,
wherein the accepting unit is configured to restrict an image editing instruction for a processed image included in the processing result or request a display control unit to display a warning in response to accepting an image editing instruction for the processed image.
However, Ginsburg teaches the medical information processing apparatus according to Claim 1, wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor (Para. 0008), further cause the medical information processing apparatus (Data Command Center Visual Display System, Para. 0022 or Data Command Center 001, Para. 0177) to function as:
an accepting unit (In-Context Image Management System, Para. 0521) configured to accept an image editing instruction for a medical image from an operator, (Enables User/Provider to edit images, Para. 0521)
wherein the accepting unit (In-Context Image Management System, Para. 0521) is configured to restrict an image editing instruction for a processed image included in the processing result or request a display control unit (Data Command Center 001, Para. 0177) to display a warning (Alert, Para. 0222) in response to accepting an image editing instruction for the processed image. (The Editor Interface of the In-Context Image Management System can be configured to display alerts. A user can set an alert to their choosing, which can comprise restrictions for editing, Para. 0011, 0013, 0154, and 0222.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Okabe’s Medical Support Server Apparatus altered by Koyanagi’s End Conditions to incorporate Ginsburg’s Data Command Center Visual Display System’s Alerts. Since doing so would provide the benefit of having an alert system that can be tailored to the user or hospital to prevent mistakes in medical records.
Claim(s) 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okabe et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication 20160203286 A1(hereinafter Okabe) in view of Koyanagi et al. Japanese Application JP 2007215685 A (hereinafter Koyanagi) in further view of Zeineh et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication 20060159367 A1(hereinafter Zeineh).
Regarding claim 3, Okabe and Koyanagi fail to teach the medical information processing apparatus according to Claim 1, wherein the obtaining unit is configured to treat the processing result as being rejected in a case where the original image is determined to be a rejected image.
Okabe, Koyanagi, and Zeineh are analogous to the claimed invention because all of them are in the same field of processing medical images.
Zeineh teaches the medical information processing apparatus (Image Management System 150, Para. 0073) according to Claim 1, wherein the obtaining unit (Specimen Review System or Diagnostic System, Para. 0073) is configured to treat the processing result as being rejected in a case where the original image is determined to be a rejected image. (A technician or the Diagnostic System reviews images and determines if they are appropriate or not. If they are found to not be appropriate, they are rejected. Para. 0073) Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Okabe’s Medical Support Server Apparatus altered by Koyanagi’s End Conditions to incorporate Zeineh’s Diagnostic System. Since doing so would provide the benefit of rejecting images that are incorrect to avoid making a diagnosis on an image that is wrong, which can result in a wrongful diagnosis. (Zeineh, Para. 0041)
Regarding claim 4, Okabe and Koyanagi fail to teach the medical information processing apparatus according to Claim 1, wherein the output unit is configured to not output the processing result to the image management server in a case where the original image is determined to be a rejected image.
However, Zeineh teaches the medical information processing apparatus (Image Management System 150, Para. 0073) according to Claim 1, wherein the output unit (Specimen Review System or Diagnostic System, Para. 0073 is configured to not output the processing result to the image management server in a case where the original image is determined to be a rejected image. (The diagnostic system rejects the incorrect image. It sends the image to an image refining system or an image specialist who may capture a new image instead. Para. 0073) Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Okabe’s Medical Support Server Apparatus altered by Koyanagi’s End Conditions to incorporate Zeineh’s Diagnostic System. Since doing so would provide the benefit of rejecting images that are incorrect to avoid making a diagnosis on an image that is wrong, which can result in a wrongful diagnosis. (Zeineh, Para. 0041)
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okabe et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication 20160203286 A1(hereinafter Okabe) in view of Koyanagi et al. Japanese Application JP 2007215685 A (hereinafter Koyanagi) in further view of Ginsburg et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication 20220084645 A1(hereinafter Ginsburg) in further view of Abid et al. Japanese Patent JP 2022549433 A (hereinafter Abid).
Regarding claim 12, Okabe, Koyanagi, and Ginsburg fail to teach the medical information processing apparatus according to Claim 11, wherein the association unit is configured to:
in a case where association information of a first processed image already associated with the original image is determined to be identical to association information of a second processed image newly obtained, update the association information of the first processed image with the association information of the second processed image,
and in a case where the association information of the first processed image is determined to be different from the association information of the second processed image, newly add the association information of the second processed image.
Okabe, Koyanagi, Ginsburg, and Abid are analogous to the claimed invention because all of them are in the same field of processing medical images.
Abid teaches the medical information processing apparatus according to Claim 11, wherein the association unit is configured to
in a case where association information (Datasets Tags or Metadata) of a first processed image (Nearly Identical Image) already associated with the original image is determined to be identical to association information (Dataset Tags or Metadata) of a second processed image (Nearly Identical Image) newly obtained, update the association information (Merge or Rewrite Existing Metadata) of the first processed image with the association information (Dataset Tags or Metadata) of the second processed image, (The Dataset Tags or Metadata consist of data associated to the images. Lab Module 134 would detect a set of nearly identical images and then rewrite the Metadata of the first image with the second images meta data. This rewrite could consist of modifying the metadata that is used to associate the images with the original image. Page 7 Para. 1-3.)
and in a case where the association information (Dataset Tags or Metadata) of the first processed image (Nearly Identical Image) is determined to be different from the association information (Dataset Tags or Metadata) of the second processed image (Nearly Identical Image), newly add the association information of the second processed image. (This case would not trigger the Lab Module 134 duplicate detection, since the Dataset Tags or Metadata would be different, thus they would be handled normally. Which is assigning the metadata or Dataset Tags associated to the images, Page 7 Para. 1-3.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Okabe’s Medical Support Server Apparatus altered by Koyanagi’s End Conditions and Zeineh’s Diagnostic System to incorporate Abid’s Lab Module that detects nearly identical images. Since doing so would provide the benefit of removing duplicated uploaded images. (Abid, Page 7, Para. 1) As well as better associating images that belong in a dataset together, by modifying metadata.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIANNA R COCHRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4671. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 7:30am - 5:00pm.
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, Alicia Harrington can be reached at (571) 272-2330. 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.
/BRIANNA RENAE COCHRAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2615
/ALICIA M HARRINGTON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2615
Prosecution Insights