CTNF 18/531,859 CTNF 90199 Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Information Disclosure Statement 06-49 The information disclosure statement filed 12/07/2023 fails to comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609 because the IDS is missing a certification statement as required by 37 CFR 1.97(e). Applicant is advised that the date of any re-submission of any item of information contained in this information disclosure statement or the submission of any missing element(s) will be the date of submission for purposes of determining compliance with the requirements based on the time of filing the statement, including all certification requirements for statements under 37 CFR 1.97(e). See MPEP § 609.05(a). The IDS filed 12/07/2023 has nevertheless been considered per Applicant’s indication in the Transmittal Letter sent 12/07/2023 that the references listed are the same references made of record in parent application No. 18/559,635. Priority Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Germany on 11/29/2023. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the DE 20 2023 107064 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55. Additionally, Examiner notes that no written claim to foreign priority appears in Applicant’s Specification or the Application Data Sheet on file. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. 07-34-01 Claims 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention . Regarding claim 2, which recites “in a case that a position is a position where the lesion candidate was detected in the previous examination”, it is unclear as to what the first instance of “a position” is referring. Based on Examiner’s best understanding of Applicant’s specification, Examiner believes it may be referring to “a part of the large intestine” recited in claim 1, but appropriate clarification and correction is required. Additionally, the second instance of “a position” in the limitation should be clarified to reflect “the shooting position where the lesion was detected in the previous examination” for proper antecedent basis support. Regarding claim 3, it is unclear if “using a machine learning model that learned a relationship…” is referring to a third machine learning model separate from the first and second machine learning models recited in claim 1, or if the recited “machine learning model” corresponds to the “second machine learning model” recited in claim 1 to have “learned a relationship between the lesion candidate and a predetermined state of the large intestine”. Appropriate clarification is required. Claim 4 is rejected for inheriting the deficiencies of claim 3 from which it depends. Double Patenting 08-33 AIA The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg , 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman , 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi , 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum , 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel , 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington , 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13. The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA/25, or PTO/AIA/26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer. 08-35 Claim s 1, 3, 6 and 7 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 4 of copending Application No. 18/559,635 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the features of each of claims 1, 3, 6 and 7 of the current application are anticipated by the elements recited in claim 4 of the reference application . This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented. Dependent claim 4 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 8 of the reference application for the same rationale as set forth above with respect to claim 1. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented. Dependent claim 5 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 13 of the reference application for the same rationale as set forth above with respect to claim 1. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 1-7 have not been rejected over prior art. If the rejections set forth above are overcome, the claims have been found to contain subject matter which would be considered allowable. 13-03-01 AIA The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The closest prior art of record, either alone or in combination, does not expressly teach or render obvious the entire combination of limitations as recited in each of independent claims 1, 6 and 7. US PG PUB. 2023/0141302 A1 (Demura) teaches performing parallel analysis for each of two types of image (normal and special light images) to output analysis results, in which the analysis unit comprises association information associating a specific state of an observation target with an image of the observation target, wherein the observation target may be the large intestine, and performs the analysis based on the association information. Additionally, US PG PUB. 2020/0320702 A1 (Kamon) teaches selecting from a plurality of region-of-interest detection models based on an in-vivo position of the endoscope corresponding to an acquired image. WO 2020254845 A1 (Macura) teaches displaying a stored image of a same part of the large intestine from a previous examination of the patient during a current endoscopic examination of the same patient. Neither Demura, nor Kamon, nor Macura expressly teaches wherein a first machine learning model detects a lesion candidate based on a learned relationship between the lesion candidate and a normal state of the large intestine, a second machine learning model detects a lesion candidate based on a learned relationship between the lesion candidate and a predetermined state of the large intestine, acquiring a previous examination result including information of the lesion candidate detected in an inflammation area, and selecting and outputting at least one of the detection result of the first machine learning model and the second machine learning model based on the estimated part of the large intestine and the previous examination result, as is claimed. Claims 1, 6, 7 and their respective dependent claims are therefore considered to contain allowable subject matter . Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The additionally cited references pertain in general to endoscopic image analysis for lesion detection and classification using machine learning approaches . Contact Information Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAMAH A BEG whose telephone number is (571)270-7912. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 AM - 5 PM. 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, HENOK SHIFERAW can be reached at 571-272-4637. 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. /SAMAH A BEG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2676 Application/Control Number: 18/531,859 Page 2 Art Unit: 2676 Application/Control Number: 18/531,859 Page 3 Art Unit: 2676 Application/Control Number: 18/531,859 Page 4 Art Unit: 2676 Application/Control Number: 18/531,859 Page 5 Art Unit: 2676 Application/Control Number: 18/531,859 Page 6 Art Unit: 2676 Application/Control Number: 18/531,859 Page 7 Art Unit: 2676 Application/Control Number: 18/531,859 Page 8 Art Unit: 2676 Application/Control Number: 18/531,859 Page 9 Art Unit: 2676