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 .
Double Patenting
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 §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) 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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The 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/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1 and 4 – 8 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 9 – 10 and 7 – 8 of U.S. Patent Application 18/288,700. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because, as can be seen from the comparison table below independent claims of current application appears to be worded slightly different than the co-pending application.
Regarding claim 1,
Claim 1 of instant application
Claim 1 of No. 18/288,700
An endoscopic examination support apparatus comprising:
a memory configured to store instructions; and
a processor configured to execute the instructions to:
acquire an endoscopic video captured by an endoscope;
detect a lesion candidate from the endoscopic video;
generate a heat map which represents a lesion possibility of the lesion candidate included in the endoscopic video by a color; and
superimpose and display an area where the lesion possibility is highest among areas in the heat map, on the endoscopic video in a first display mode, and superimpose and display an area where the lesion possibility is next highest among the areas in the heat map, on the endoscopic video in a second display mode,
wherein the second threshold is larger than the first threshold, and
wherein the second display mode has a higher transparency than the first display mode.
An endoscopic examination support apparatus comprising:
a memory configured to store instructions; and
a processor configured to execute the instructions to:
acquire an endoscopic video captured by an endoscope;
detect a lesion candidate from the endoscopic video;
generate a heat map which represents a lesion possibility of the lesion candidate included in the endoscopic video by a color; and
superimpose and display an area where the lesion possibility is equal to or higher than a first threshold on the endoscopic video in a first display mode, and superimpose and display an area where the lesion possibility is equal to or higher than a second threshold on the endoscopic video in a second display mode,
wherein the second threshold is larger than the first threshold, and
wherein the second display mode has a higher transparency than the first display mode.
Regarding claims 4 – 8 of instant application, they are corresponding to claims 9 – 10 and 7 – 8 of U.S. Patent Application 18/288,700, respectively.
Claims 1 and 4 – 8 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 4 – 8 of U.S. Patent Application 18/530,375. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because, as can be seen from the comparison table below independent claims of current application appears to be worded slightly different than the co-pending application.
Regarding claim 1,
Claim 1 of instant application
Claim 1 of No. 18/530,375
An endoscopic examination support apparatus comprising:
a memory configured to store instructions; and
a processor configured to execute the instructions to:
acquire an endoscopic video captured by an endoscope;
detect a lesion candidate from the endoscopic video;
generate a heat map which represents a lesion possibility of the lesion candidate included in the endoscopic video by a color; and
superimpose and display an area where the lesion possibility is highest among areas in the heat map, on the endoscopic video in a first display mode, and superimpose and display an area where the lesion possibility is next highest among the areas in the heat map, on the endoscopic video in a second display mode,
wherein the second threshold is larger than the first threshold, and
wherein the second display mode has a higher transparency than the first display mode.
An endoscopic examination support apparatus comprising:
a memory configured to store instructions; and
a processor configured to execute the instructions to:
acquire an endoscopic video captured by an endoscope;
detect a lesion candidate from the endoscopic video;
generate a heat map which represents a lesion possibility of the lesion candidate included in the endoscopic video by a color; and
superimpose and display the lesion possibility on the endoscopic video in multiple display modes with different degree of transparency according to the lesion possibility.
Regarding claims 4 – 8 of instant application, they are corresponding to claims 4 – 8 of U.S. Patent Application 18/530,375, respectively.
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 – 3, 5 and 7 – 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kubota et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2021/0274999, IDS), hereinafter referred as Kubota, in view of Watanabe (US Patent Application Publication 2024/0029404, IDS), and in further view of Usuda (US Patent Application Publication 2021/0153720, IDS).
Regarding claim 1, Kubota discloses an endoscopic examination support apparatus (Figs. 1 – 2) comprising:
a memory configured to store instructions ([0028], ROM, RAM, storage device); and
a processor ([0028], CPU) configured to execute the instructions to:
acquire an endoscopic video captured by an endoscope ([0045], “The computation unit 22b acquires an image pickup signal from the endoscope 2 by the control unit 22a controlling driving of the light source apparatus 3 and driving of the image pickup device of the endoscope 2 and controlling the image pickup signal acquisition unit 21 in accordance with a set observation mode …”);
detect a lesion candidate from the endoscopic video ([0046], “The lesion detection unit 33 in the support information generation unit 32 first detects a lesion area Ln from the observation image G1 by performing processing of applying an image discriminator which has acquired a function of being capable of discriminating a polyp image in advance through a learning method such as deep learning, to the observation image G1 (S2). The detection result of the lesion area Ln is output to the oversight risk analysis unit 34);
generate a marker image which represents a lesion possibility of the lesion candidate included in the endoscopic video by a color (Figs. 6 – 7, [0083 – 0087]); and
superimpose and display an area where the lesion possibility is highest among areas in the marker image, on the endoscopic video in a first display mode, and superimpose and display an area where the lesion possibility is next highest among the areas in the marker image, on the endoscopic video in a second display mode (Figs. 6 – 7, [0083 – 0087]),
wherein the second threshold is larger than the first threshold ([0083 – 0087], oversight risk is high (threshold) than oversight risk is low).
However, Kubota fails to explicitly disclose the apparatus wherein the marker image is a heat map; and wherein the second display mode has a higher transparency than the first display mode.
However, in a similar field of endeavor Watanabe discloses an endoscope system (abstract). In addition, Watanabe discloses the system wherein generate and display a heat map for detected lesion ([0119]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Kubota, and generate and display a heat map for detected lesion. The motivation for doing this is that utilizing a heat map to display a lesion possibility by color allows user to easily detect lesion candidate.
Furthermore, in a similar field of endeavor Usuda discloses an endoscope system (abstract). In addition, Usuda discloses the system wherein the second display mode has a higher transparency than the first display mode (Fig. 7, [0075 - 0077, 0118 - 0119], teach display a lesion region with different transparency, wherein the second display mode as in fig. 7C has a higher transparency than the first display mode as in Fig. 7B).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Kubota in view of Watanabe, and the second display mode has a higher transparency than the first display mode. The motivation for doing this is that utilizing different transparency provides another way of distinction for different regions so that the Application of Kubota can be broadened.
Regarding claim 2 (depends on claim 1), Usuda discloses the apparatus wherein the second display mode is different in transparency from the first display mode (Fig. 7, [0075 - 0077, 0118 - 0119], teach display a lesion region with different transparency, wherein the second display mode as in fig. 7C has a higher transparency than the first display mode as in Fig. 7B).
Regarding claim 3 (depends on claim 2), Usuda discloses the apparatus wherein the second display mode has a higher transparency than the first display mode(Fig. 7, [0075 - 0077, 0118 - 0119], teach display a lesion region with different transparency, wherein the second display mode as in fig. 7C has a higher transparency than the first display mode as in Fig. 7B).
Regarding claim 5 (depends on claim 1), Kubota discloses the apparatus wherein the processor is further configured to execute the instructions to: detect the lesion using a machine learning model learned in advance to estimate a lesion candidate included in the endoscopic image ([0037, 0061, 0069]).
Regarding claims 7 – 8, they are corresponding to claim 1, thus, they are interpreted and rejected for a same reason set forth for claim 1.
Claim(s) 4 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kubota in view of Watanabe, in further view of Usuda and Kang et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2016/0027174, IDS), hereinafter referred as Kang.
Regarding claim 4 (depends on claim 1), Kubota in view of Watanabe and in further view of Usuda fails to explicitly disclose the apparatus wherein a predetermined mark is superimposed and displayed at a position of a center or a center of gravity of an area having a highest lesion possibility.
However, in a similar field of endeavor Kang discloses an image processing system (abstract). In addition, Kang discloses the system wherein a predetermined mark is superimposed and displayed at a position of a center or a center of gravity of an area having a highest lesion possibility (Figs. 3-4, [0078-0089], teach wherein a predetermine mark or cross mark 311 is superimposed and displayed at a position of a center of an area having a highest lesion possibility).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Kubota, and a predetermined mark is superimposed and displayed at a position of a center or a center of gravity of an area having a highest lesion possibility. The motivation for doing this is that utilizing a mark at the center allows the user to easily detect most accurate position any lesion candidates.
Regarding claim 6 (depends on claim 4), Kang discloses the apparatus wherein the predetermined mark is displayed as a guide to a position of the lesion candidate for supporting decision making of a doctor (Figs. 3-4, [0078-0089] teach wherein a predetermine mark or cross mark 311 is displayed as a guide to a position of the lesion candidate for supporting decision making of a doctor).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to QIAN YANG whose telephone number is (571)270-7239. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 8am-6pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Andrew Bee can be reached on 571-270-5183. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/QIAN YANG/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2677