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. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement filed 12/13/2023 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 12/13/2023 has nevertheless been considered per Applicant’s indication in the Transmittal Letter filed 12/13/2023 that the references listed are the same references of record in parent application No. 18/559,635. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 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 appl icant regards as his invention. Claim 2 is 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. Claim 2 recites the limitation “the previous examination result”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, thereby rendering the entire claim indefinite. Appropriate clarification is required. 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 § 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 . Claims 1, 4 and 5 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 10 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, 4 and 5 of the current application are anticipated by claim 10 of the reference application. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented. Claim 3 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 10 of copending Application No. 18/559,635, as applied to claim 1 above, in view of U.S. PG PUB. 2020/0320702 A1 (hereinafter “ Kamon ”). Claim 10 of the reference application discloses t he endoscopic examination support apparatus according to claim 1 , as set forth above . Claim 10 does not recite “ wherein the processor outputs the detection result as a guide to a position of the lesion candidate for supporting decision making of a doctor ”, but, in an analogous field of endeavor, Kamon does as follows. Kamon teaches w herein the processor outputs the detection result as a guide to a position of the lesion candidate for supporting decision making of a doctor ( Kamon , ¶0045, 0069, 0072; “ a lesion region is detected from the captured video, and the detected lesion region is superimposed and displayed on the video in a recognizable manner on the display unit 18. ”). Kamon is considered analogous art because it pertains to an endoscopic image analysis system. 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 apparatus in claim 10 of the reference application to include instructions to the processor for outputting a display of an image of a detected lesion on a user interface in a recognizable manner, as taught by Kamon , in order to arrive at the apparatus as recited in claim 3. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 1-5 are not rejected over prior art, and have been found to contain subject matter which would be considered allowable should the above rejection under 35 USC 112(b) and the d ouble patenting rejection be overcome. 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 the entire combination of limitations as recited in each of independent claims 1, 4 and 5. For example, 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 , wherein the selected detection model detects a lesion region which may include a colonic diverticulum . None of the prior art references, either alone or in combination, expressly teaches or suggests detecting a lesion candidate using a first machine learning model which has learned a relationship between the lesion candidate and a normal state of the large intestine, detecting a lesion candidate using a second machine learning model which has learned a relationship between the lesion candidate and a state in which there is a diverticulum in the large intestine, and outputting at least one of a detection result obtained using the first model and the second model, as is claimed. Claims 1, 4 and 5 and their respective dependent claims are therefore considered to contain allowable subject matter . Conclusion 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 and lesion classification using machine learning approaches. Co ntact Information Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT SAMAH A BEG whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-7912 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT HENOK SHIFERAW can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 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