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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: image processing unit in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter (process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). The Examiner recommends including a non-transitory recording medium, such as disclosed in paragraph 107.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, because the claim purports to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, but fails to recite a combination of elements as required by that statutory provision and thus cannot rely on the specification to provide the structure, material or acts to support the claimed function. As such, the claim recites a function that has no limits and covers every conceivable means for achieving the stated function, while the specification discloses at most only those means known to the inventor. Accordingly, the disclosure is not commensurate with the scope of the claim.
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.
Claims 2-3,5-10 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 “wherein the processing timing is a timing obtained by multiplying a frequency higher than that of a vertical synchronization signal of any of the medical images.” It is unclear what Applicant is attempting to claim. Medical Images do not contain a “vertical synchronization”. Vertical synchronization (VSync) is a display setting that synchronizes a computer's graphics card (GPU) frame rate with the monitor's refresh rate to eliminate screen tearing. It prevents the GPU from sending new frames until the monitor has finished refreshing, ensuring a single frame is displayed per refresh cycle.
Claim 3 recites “wherein a multiplication number is a division number of the strip image”. It is unclear what Applicant means. Multiplication and Division are opposite mathematical operations. It is unclear what is a multiplication number and how it can be a “division number”.
Claim 5 recites “memory is completed”. It is not clear what Applicant means? Does this mean full?
Claims 6-10 are rejected as dependent upon a rejected claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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) 1,4-7, 11 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Song (PGPub 2019/0114770).
Song discloses 1. A medical image processing system comprising an image processing unit configured to execute, at each predetermined processing timing, image processing on each of a plurality of medical images input asynchronously in units of strip images obtained by dividing each of the medical images into a plurality of pieces. (Song, Fig. 5, paragraph 47, “[0047] In step S504, WSI 220 may be divided into multiple tiles. Each tile may include a subset of pixels of WSI 220. In some embodiments, when an FCN transformed from a CNN is used for image analysis, the tiles may be divided such that they overlap with each other as illustrated in FIG. 4A. For example, for a receptive field size of k and a down-sample factor of d, the overlapping size may be set as k-d in each image dimension.”, where the tiles read on the strip images; where the CNN used for image analysis reads on the image processing; paragraph 48 “[0048] In step S506, the image tiles (e.g., tiles 312-316 or 412-414) may be read into storage 204 by tile readers 242. In step S508, the tiles may be added to a tile queue 262 in memory 206. In some embodiments, tile queue 262 may be asynchronous. In other words, tile queue 262 may be a buffer queue, such that the tiles are read into the queue at a speed different from that of the tiles being read out of the queue. For example, five tiles may be read into tile queue 262 per second, while only three tiles are read out from the queue. Tile queue 262 therefore helps to hide the input/output latency.”)
Song discloses 4. The medical image processing system according to claim 1, wherein the strip image is an image obtained by dividing the medical image into a plurality of pieces in a horizontal direction. (Song, paragraph 47, See Tiles in Fig. 4A)
Song discloses 5. The medical image processing system according to claim 1, wherein the image processing unit executes, at the processing timing, the image processing of each of the medical images on the strip image for which data deployment on a memory is completed. (Song, paragraph 38-39, “The tiles are read into memory 206 by tile readers 242 and stored in tile queue 262. In some embodiments, the tiles (e.g., tiles A-O) are stored in tile queue 262 in the order they are received by memory 206.
[0039] Consistent with the present disclosure, the tiles stored in tile queue 262 may be read out by processor 208 and assigned to different threads. For example, the tiles may be assigned to multiple tile processors 282-286 for parallel processing.”)
Song discloses 6. The medical image processing system according to claim 5, wherein in the image processing on each of the medical images, the image processing unit skips, at the processing timing, the image processing on the strip image for which the data deployment on the memory is not completed. (Song, paragraph 38-39, “The tiles are read into memory 206 by tile readers 242 and stored in tile queue 262. In some embodiments, the tiles (e.g., tiles A-O) are stored in tile queue 262 in the order they are received by memory 206.
[0039] Consistent with the present disclosure, the tiles stored in tile queue 262 may be read out by processor 208 and assigned to different threads. For example, the tiles may be assigned to multiple tile processors 282-286 for parallel processing.”, where if the tile is not in memory it cannot be deployed(assigned) to a thread)
Song discloses 7. The medical image processing system according to claim 6, wherein the data is deployed to different regions on the memory for each strip image. (Song, paragraph 39, where data is deployed to different threads)
Song discloses 11. A medical image processing method comprising causing a medical image processing system to execute, at each predetermined processing timing, image processing on each of a plurality of medical images input asynchronously in units of strip images obtained by dividing each of the medical images into a plurality of pieces. (see claim 1)
Song discloses 12. A program causing a computer to execute, at each predetermined processing timing, image processing on each of a plurality of medical images input asynchronously in units of strip images obtained by dividing each of the medical images into a plurality of pieces. (see claim 1)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GANDHI THIRUGNANAM whose telephone number is (571)270-3261. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5PM.
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, Sumati Lefkowitz can be reached at 571-272-3638. 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.
/GANDHI THIRUGNANAM/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2672