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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-15, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Regarding claim 1:
Claim 1 is directed to idea of itself (abstract idea) without significantly more for the following reason(s):
Step 1: Claim 1 recites an image processing apparatus comprising: at least one processor, wherein the processor is configured to: set a first region including an entire target organ for a medical image; set a plurality of small regions including the target organ in the first region; derive a first evaluation value indicating presence or absence of an abnormality in the first region; derive a second evaluation value indicating the presence or absence of the abnormality in each of the plurality of small regions; and derive a third evaluation value indicating the presence or absence of the abnormality in the medical image from the first evaluation value and the second evaluation value. Thus, the claim is directed to an apparatus, which is one of the statutory categories of the invention.
Step 2A prong 1, the claimed set a first region for a medical image, set a plurality of small region, derive first, second and third evaluation values, and indicating the presence or absence of abnormality in the medical image steps are directed to abstract idea for the reason that these steps are processes found by the courts to be abstract ideas in that related to “mental processes grouping” where said steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind and/or with a pen and paper. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. Thus, these steps are an abstract idea in the “mental process” grouping. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A prong 2, The Judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Treating claim 1 as a whole, the claim limitations do not show inventive concept in applying the judicial exception. From the claim scope, the claim fail to address any improvement because merely setting a first region for a medical image, setting a plurality of small region, deriving first, second and third evaluation values, and indicating the presence or absence of abnormality in the medical image is not enough to tie the claim towards the technical improvement and can be performed in human mind and/or with a pen and paper. Thus, claim 1 as a whole is not significantly more than the abstract idea itself and is ineligible.
Step 2B, The claim include additional elements “at least one processor” simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, as discussed in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)). Hence, the additional elements do not integrate the exception into a practical application and do not amount to claiming significantly more than the recited judicial exception. Therefore, the claim 1 is not patent eligible.
Regarding claims 2-13.
Claims 2-13, are rejected under 35 U.S.C 101 because the claimed invention is directed to idea of itself (abstract idea) without significantly more, nothing in the claims element precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind and/or with a pen and paper. The claims 2-10, and 12-13, does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, said claims are not patent eligible. Furthermore, claim 11, include additional elements “a display” simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, as discussed in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)). Hence, the additional elements do not integrate the exception into a practical application and do not amount to claiming significantly more than the recited judicial exception. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 14.
Claim 14, is directed to idea of itself (abstract idea) without significantly more for the following reason(s):
Step 1: Claim 14 recites an image processing method comprising: setting a first region including an entire target organ for a medical image; setting a plurality of small regions including the target organ in the first region; deriving a first evaluation value indicating presence or absence of an abnormality in the first region; deriving a second evaluation value indicating the presence or absence of the abnormality in each of the plurality of small regions; and deriving a third evaluation value indicating the presence or absence of the abnormality in the medical image from the first evaluation value and the second evaluation value. Thus, the claim is directed to a method, which is one of the statutory categories of the invention.
Step 2A prong 1, the claimed setting a first region for a medical image, setting a plurality of small region, deriving first, second and third evaluation values, and indicating the presence or absence of abnormality in the medical image, are directed to abstract idea for the reason that these steps are processes found by the courts to be abstract ideas in that related to “mental processes grouping”, where said steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, and/or with a pen and paper. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind and/or with a pen and paper. Thus, these steps are an abstract idea in the “mental process” grouping. Accordingly, the claim 14, recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A prong 2, The Judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Treating claim 14 as a whole, the claim limitations do not show inventive concept in applying the judicial exception. From the claim scope, the claim fail to address any improvement because merely setting a first region for a medical image, setting a plurality of small region, deriving first, second and third evaluation values, and indicating the presence or absence of abnormality in the medical image is not enough to tie the claim towards the technical improvement and can be performed in human mind and/or with a pen and paper. Thus, claim 14 as a whole is not significantly more than the abstract idea itself and is ineligible.
Step 2B, The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim recites setting a first region for a medical image, setting a plurality of small region, deriving first, second and third evaluation values, and indicating the presence or absence of abnormality in the medical image, said steps are an act of evaluating information that can be practically performed in the human mind and/or with a pen and paper. Thus, said steps are an abstract idea in the “mental process” grouping. Courts have held computer‐implemented processes not to be significantly more than an abstract idea (and thus ineligible) where the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement an abstract idea, such as an idea that could be done by a human analog (i.e., by hand or by merely thinking) component cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus claim 14, is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 15.
claim 15, rejected under 35 U.S.C 101 because the claimed invention is directed to idea of itself (abstract idea) without significantly more, nothing in the claims element precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind and/or with a pen and paper as being discussed with respect to claim 14. Claim 15, include additional elements “a computer to execute a program” simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, as discussed in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)). Hence, the additional elements do not integrate the exception into a practical application and do not amount to claiming significantly more than the recited judicial exception. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 11, and 14-15, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Matsuda (JP 2005237441 A, hereinafter Matsuda, please note English translation of the JP is being attached and used for citation).
As per claim 1, Matsuda discloses an image processing apparatus (Matsuda, Figs. 1-13) comprising:
at least one processor (Matsuda, Fig. 1:20), wherein the processor is configured to:
set a first region including an entire target organ for a medical image (Matsuda, Fig. 13, shows a first region of brain (ROI) including the entire brain i.e., target organ, and also please see paragraphs 76-78);
set a plurality of small regions including the target organ in the first region (Matsuda, Fig. 13, ROI of disease B, which shows small regions including the target organ in the first region, and also please see paragraphs 76-78);
derive a first evaluation value indicating presence or absence of an abnormality in the first region (Matsuda, paragraphs 76-79, discloses Z-score map of the entire brain i.e., first evaluation value);
derive a second evaluation value indicating the presence or absence of the abnormality in each of the plurality of small regions (Matsuda, paragraph 77, discloses Z-score map of only the portion to which the ROI is applied); and
derive a third evaluation value indicating the presence or absence of the abnormality in the medical image from the first evaluation value and the second evaluation value (Matsuda, paragraphs 76-79, and 82-84, discloses determining whether or not the subject has a disease).
As per claim 2, Matsuda further discloses the image processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the first evaluation value includes at least one of a presence probability of the abnormality, a position of the abnormality, a shape feature of the abnormality, or a property feature of the abnormality in the first region (Matsuda, paragraphs 77-79, please note that here both Z-score map of the entire brain and the Z-score map of the ROI represents the property characteristics of the abnormality of brain tissue atrophy),
the second evaluation value includes at least one of a presence probability of the abnormality, a position of the abnormality, a shape feature of the abnormality, or a property feature of the abnormality in each of the small regions (Matsuda, paragraphs 77-79, please note that here both Z-score map of the entire brain and the Z-score map of the ROI represents the property characteristics of the abnormality of brain tissue atrophy), and
the third evaluation value includes at least one of a presence probability of the abnormality, a position of the abnormality, a shape feature of the abnormality, or a property feature of the abnormality in the medical image (Matsuda, paragraphs 77-79, please note that here both Z-score map of the entire brain and the Z-score map of the ROI represents the property characteristics of the abnormality of brain tissue atrophy).
As per claim 3, Matsuda further discloses the image processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to set the plurality of small regions by dividing the first region based on an anatomical structure (Matsuda, Fig. 13, and paragraphs 19 and 76, discloses ROI set for each disease is a set of characteristics voxels in the disease and is based on the structure of brain).
As per claim 4, Matsuda further discloses the image processing apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the processor is configured to set the plurality of small regions by dividing the first region based on an anatomical structure (Matsuda, Fig. 13, and paragraphs 19 and 76, discloses ROI set for each disease is a set of characteristics voxels in the disease and is based on the structure of brain).
As per claim 11, Matsuda further discloses the image processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to display an evaluation result based on at least one of the first evaluation value, the second evaluation value, or the third evaluation value on a display (Matsuda, paragraph 22, discloses displaying result processed by processing unit).
As per claim 14, please see the analysis of claim 1.
As per claim 15, Matsuda discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium that stores an image processing program causing a computer (Matsuda, paragraphs 16-17) to execute:
For rest of claim limitations please see the analysis of claim 1.
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 (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 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) 5-8, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuda (JP 2005237441 A, hereinafter Matsuda, please note English translation of the JP is being attached and used for citation) and further in view of Sofka (US PGPUB 2018/0144467 A1) .
As per claim 5, Matsuda further discloses the image processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the Matsuda does not explicitly disclose processor is configured to set the plurality of small regions based on an indirect finding regarding the target organ.
Sofka discloses processor is configured to set the plurality of small regions based on an indirect finding regarding the target organ (Sofka, paragraphs 10 and 59).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Matsuda teachings by performing segmentation to the target organ, as taught by Sofka.
The motivation would be to provide an imaging system with improved quality and lower cost (paragraph 47), as taught by Sofka.
As per claim 6, please see the analysis of claim 5.
As per claim 7, Matsuda in view of Sofka further discloses the image processing apparatus according to claim 5, wherein the indirect finding includes at least one of atrophy, swelling, stenosis, or dilation that occurs in the target organ (Sofka, paragraph 59).
As per claim 8, please see the analysis of claim 7.
Claim(s) 9-10, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuda (JP 2005237441 A, hereinafter Matsuda, please note English translation of the JP is being attached and used for citation) and further in view of Kang (US PGPUB 2018/0099008 A1) .
As per claim 9, Matsuda further discloses the image processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to: Matsuda does not explicitly disclose set an axis passing through the target organ; and set the small region in the target organ along the axis.
Kang discloses set an axis passing through the target organ; and set the small region in the target organ along the axis (Kang, paragraphs 239 and 251).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Matsuda teachings by dividing the organ in a specific manner, as taught by Kang.
The motivation would be to improving the function of the tissue in an individual having a compromised tissue repair system (paragraph 168), as taught by Kang.
As per claim 10, please see the analysis of claim 9.
Claim(s) 12, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuda (JP 2005237441 A, hereinafter Matsuda, please note English translation of the JP is being attached and used for citation) and further in view of Weiss (US PGPUB 2018/0263585 A1) .
As per claim 12, Matsuda further discloses the image processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the Matsuda does not explicitly disclose medical image is a tomographic image of an abdomen including a pancreas, and the target organ is a pancreas.
Weiss discloses medical image is a tomographic image of an abdomen (Weiss, paragraph 3) including a pancreas, and the target organ is a pancreas (Weiss, paragraph 22).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Matsuda teachings by performing CT scan, as taught by Weiss.
The motivation would be to provide an improved system for identifying a source of abdominal pain (paragraph 3), as taught by Weiss.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SYED Z HAIDER whose telephone number is (571)270-5169. The examiner can normally be reached MONDAY-FRIDAY 9-5:30 EST.
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, SAM K Ahn can be reached at 571-272-3044. 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.
/SYED HAIDER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2633