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 (IDS) submitted on 08/14/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Claims 1-16 and 18 in the reply filed on 03/03/2026 is acknowledged.
Examiner’s Note
Examiner notes that Attorney Kurt Berger (Reg# 51,461) confirmed on 05/14/2026 that claim 18 was meant to be dependent on claim 16 and should recite a method instead of a data processing apparatus. Thus, claim 18 will be interpreted accordingly.
Claim Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 2 recites “the visual extractor” which Examiner suggests amending to “the visual extractor model” in order to provide consistency in the claim language. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 3 recites “input data data” which Examiner suggests amending to “input data” (deleting the extra “data”). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities: Lines 5-6 recite “the image tokens that are used by the image analysis model” which Examiner suggests amending to “the image tokens that are used to train the image analysis model” in order to provide consistency and clarity in the claim language. Appropriate correction is required.
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 applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 12, 14, 15, and 18 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.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the cluster of anatomical regions relating to said pre-determined sub-task" in Line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as there is no earlier mention of a cluster of anatomical regions relating to said pre-determined sub-task. Examiner suggests amending to “a cluster of anatomical regions relating to said pre-determined sub-task” and has interpreted the limitation as such.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the subject" in Line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as there is no earlier mention of a subject. Examiner suggests amending to “a subject” and has interpreted the limitation as such.
Claim 15 recites the limitations "”the subject" in Line 2 and “the absence of a change” in Line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim as there is no earlier mention of a subject or an absence of a change. Examiner suggests amending the limitations to “a subject” and “an absence of a change”, respectively, and has interpreted the limitations as such.
Claim 18 recites the limitations "A data processing apparatus according to claim 16" in Line 1 and “the processing circuitry” in Line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim as claim 16 is a method claim (not a data processing apparatus) and there is no earlier mention of a processing circuitry. Examiner suggests amending the limitations to “A method according to claim 16” and “a processing circuitry”, respectively, and has interpreted the limitations as such. See also Examiner’s note above on claim 18.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-5, 8, 9, 11, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Bian (US 2023/0092027).
With regards to claim 1, Bian discloses a data processing apparatus configured to train an image analysis model to perform a task relating to input data which includes at least image data, wherein the data processing apparatus comprises processing circuitry (Para. 0036 lines 1-7, 0047 lines 1-7, "computer") configured to:
receive the input data (Para. 0037 line 1, 0048 line 1, 0049 lines 1-7, "sample medical image");
generate image tokens for inputting to the image analysis model (Para. 0039 lines 1-3, 0051 lines 1-4, 0060 lines 1-3, "visual feature sequence" "label" input information") by applying a visual extractor model that is trained to identify an anatomical region included in the image data which is comprised in the input data and to determine a label relating to a pre-determined sub-task relating to said anatomical region (Para. 0038 lines 1-4, 0039 lines 1-3, 0040 lines 6-12, 0051 lines 1-4, 0052 lines 1-6, "visual feature extraction network" "label"); and
train the image analysis model by inputting at least the image tokens (Para. 0036 lines 1-3, 0041 lines 1-4, 0043 lines 1-3, 0044 lines 1-5, 0047 lines 1-3, 0064 lines 1-6, 0066 lines 1-3, 0068 lines 1-6, "adjust a parameter" "training").
With regards to claim 2, Bian discloses a data processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the task for which the image analysis model is trained comprises generation of a text report (Para. 0032 lines 1-3, 0046 lines 1-7 and 14-15, 0066 lines 1-3, 0067 lines 1-6, "text report" "generate an image report" "image report in a text form").
With regards to claim 3, Bian discloses a data processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the task for which the image analysis model is trained comprises at least one of: image classification, visual question answering, image captioning, automated reporting (Para. 0032 lines 1-3, 0046 lines 1-7 and 14-15, 0066 lines 1-3, 0067 lines 1-6, "text report" "generate an image report" "image report in a text form").
With regards to claim 4, Bian discloses a data processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein at least one of: the image analysis model comprises a transformer model (Para. 0036 lines 1-3, 0041 lines 1-4, 0043 lines 1-3, 0064 lines 1-6, 0066 lines 1-3, 0110 lines 1-8, 0111 lines 1-8, "transformer"); or the visual extractor model comprises a Faster R-CNN (Region-based convolutional neural network) model.
With regards to claim 5, Bian discloses a data processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the input data is multi-modal data, and wherein the visual extractor is applied to the multi-modal data (Para. 0048 line 1, 0049 lines 1-7, 0050 lines 1-16, 0051 lines 1-4, "sample medical image" "corresponding target image report").
With regards to claim 8, Bian discloses a data processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the predetermined sub-task is a task for obtaining a finding in respect of the anatomical region (Para. 0062 lines 1-5, "category").
With regards to claim 9, Bian discloses a data processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the visual extractor model identifies a plurality of anatomical regions (Para. 0062 lines 8-12, "organ" "lesion").
With regards to claim 11, Bian discloses a data processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the generating of the image tokens comprises concatenating a feature representation of the anatomical region with a global image feature representation (Para. 0051 lines 1-4, 0055 lines 1-24, 0060 lines 1-3, "global feature" "regional feature").
With regards to claim 16, it recites the functions of the apparatus of claim 1 as a process. Thus, the analysis in rejecting claim 1 is equally applicable to claim 16.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6, 7, 10, and 13 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
With regards to claim 6, Bian (US 2023/0092027) discloses a corresponding image report comprising text data, however, the image analysis model is not applied to the corresponding image report.
With regards to claim 7, it is dependent on claim 6.
With regards to claim 10, Bian (US 2023/0092027) discloses a plurality of anatomical regions. However, there is no mention of where the training of the image analysis model comprises masking out at least one generational layer of the ontology.
With regards to claim 13, Bian (US 2023/0092027) discloses where the visual extractor model determines a label for the pre-determined sub-task and training the image analysis model, however, there is no mention of where the training of the image analysis model further comprises deleting at least one sentence of the plurality of sentences relating to said pre-determined sub-task and masking out a cluster of anatomical regions corresponding to said deleted at least one sentence.
Claims 12, 14, 15, and 18 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
With regards to claim 12, Bian (US 2023/0092027) discloses where the visual extractor model determines a label for the pre-determined sub-task, however, there is no mention of where the training of the image analysis model comprises masking out a cluster of anatomical regions relating to said pre-determined sub-task.
With regards to claim 14, Bian (US 2023/0092027) discloses where the image data comprise scans of the subject and generating image tokens for inputting to the image analysis model, however, there is no mention of where corresponding image tokens from the current scan and prior scan are paired when inputting the image tokens to the image analysis model.
With regards to claim 15, Bian (US 2023/0092027) discloses where the image data comprise scans of the subject and generating image tokens for inputting to the image analysis model, however, there is no mention of where the pre-determined sub-task is to predict a change of an attribute of a finding between the prior scan and the current scan, or the absence of a change of said attribute.
With regards to claim 18, Bian (US 2023/0092027) discloses where the visual extractor model determines a label for the pre-determined sub-task, however, there is no mention of where the processing circuitry is further configured to receive an input from a user that is indicative of a selection of a sub-set of the plurality of anatomical regions, and to limit the image tokens that are used to train the image analysis model in accordance with the selection.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Applicants are directed to consider additional pertinent prior art included on the Notice of References Cited (PTOL 892) attached herewith.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAROL W CHAN whose telephone number is (571)272-5766. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30-3:30 M-F.
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.
/CAROL W CHAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2672
Prosecution Insights