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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments and amendment have persuasively overcome the claim objections and most of the 112(b) rejections.
The remaining issues are addressed below.
Specification objections
Applicant argues:
It is respectfully submitted that the amended title is more descriptive and is a clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed to.
Examiner responds:
A new title has been suggested below.
Applicant argues:
Applicant has rewritten the Abstract to use plain language to identify the contrast state determination device, thereby enabling a determination of the gist of the technical disclosure.
Examiner responds:
Merely reciting that it is a computer is insufficient, rather, details such as use of a convolutional neural network help convey the gist of the invention.
112a
Applicant argues:
The cited earlier patent (US 12493954B2) explains that using metadata-based elapsed time is unreliable due to subject variability.
Examiner responds:
This explanation is not apparent from reading the cited earlier patent (US 12493954B2) and thus unpersuasive. Because the proffered explanation is mere attorney argument, it is not entitled to evidentiary weight. Additionally, the examiner notes that tracking the measured time for an image would be understood as metadata for that image.
Applicant may wish to submit a sworn declaration from the inventor (because, unlike attorney argument, sworn declarations are entitled to patentable weight) that further explains the statements in US 12493954B2.
Applicant argues:
In addition, there is no requirement under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) that a later application must be consistent with statements in an earlier patent by the same inventor.
Examiner responds:
When an inventor makes a sworn statement that a technique does not work (note the inventor’s oath for US 12493954B2), if the inventor later asserts to have made the technique work, one would expect an explanation for how they were wrong previously. The lack of such an explanation suggests a lack of possession because this explanation is precisely the sort of detail that is expected to demonstrate possession.
Applicant argues:
As such, the claims do not merely recite a result, but instead define the steps or features to achieve the determination of the "contrast state."
Examiner responds:
The claim amendments have not added detail as to how the claimed steps are accomplished.
Applicant argues:
The term "learning model," as used in claims 3 and 7, would be understood by a person of skill in the art as referring to well-defined computational structure used in machine learning.
Examiner responds:
The issue is the wide variety of different learning models. As noted previously, limiting the claim to convolutional neural networks overcomes this issue.
Applicant argues:
In view of the specification, the scope of "learning model" is reasonably bounded
Examiner responds:
US practice forbids importing limitations from the specification.
Double patenting
Applicant argues:
Regarding claim 1, Applicant respectfully submits that the at least the features …
Examiner responds:
See the updated prior art rejection.
102
Applicant argues:
However, the time phase data refers to phases such as the early vascular phase, arterial predominant phase, portal predominant phase, or post vascular phase (Canon's paragraph [0004]). The time phase data does not represent a likelihood of belonging to each of a plurality of contrast states as required in claim 1.
Examiner responds:
As the examiner note explained, the contrast data and the time phase data are understood as interchangeable. See also, Canon, Fig. 18. Further, a determination that a given phase is most likely meets the claim language. Even if Canon’s determination is understood as 0%, 0%, 100%, 0% for the various phases, this is a likelihood for each phase.
Applicant argues:
Canon's FIG. 18 and its associated description do not teach a determination of a contrast state (e.g., early vascular phase, arterial predominant phase) according to the "time phase data" (alleged as "index value" as claimed).
Examiner responds:
Fig. 18 appears to teach exactly this (e.g., the slider bar aligned with the named phases).
101
Applicant argues:
Applicant respectfully submits that the claimed invention recites features that contribute to an improvement in the technical field, and is therefore integrated into a practical application.
Examiner responds:
The improvement analysis only applies to additional elements, but Applicant has not identified any additional elements. Additionally, as per the examiner’s note, this invention is not an improvement over the prior art Sofka.
Examiner Note
MPEP 2120(I) states “Prior art rejections should ordinarily be confined strictly to the best available art.” However, in the interest of compact prosecution, the examiner is providing additional commentary such that this issue can be resolved sooner. The claimed invention is understood as a legally obvious variation over Sofka’s (submitted by Applicant, see Specification, [0003]). Applicant asserts the difference is that where Sofka analyzes an image (of, e.g., a liver) to estimate the phase of a contrast agent spreading through an organ, whereas Applicant instead analyzes the same image to determine the time elapsed since the contrast agent began spreading. The examiner’s analysis has not identified any analysis techniques (e.g., a new neural network architecture) that are different from Sofka.
However, estimating time elapsed and the contrast phase are known substitutes. MPEP 2144.06(II). See, e.g., the “Phases” section from the attached Wikipedia article on Contrast CT from before the earliest asserted priority date (i.e., the images at issue in this application), where there is a table that shows how the phases are matched to “time from injection.”
Another way to see that Applicant’s invention is obvious is that “Omission of an Element and Its Function Is Obvious if the Function of the Element Is Not Desired.” MPEP 2144.04(II). Applicant explains that the difference between its approach and Sofka’s is that Sofka does not determine the time of the image before determining the phase. However, Applicant does not have a use for the time other than determining the phase (i.e., the same information that Sofka determines), and thus the function of determining the elapsed time is not desired. See, for example, claim 8, stating that the estimated time is converted to a contrast state via a lookup table.
One way to distinguish over Sofka is to submit evidence of new and unexpected results.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: Device, Method and Program for Determining State of Injected Contrast Agent in Computed Tomography from a Two-Dimensional Image.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it does not “enable the Office and the public generally to determine quickly from a cursory inspection the nature and gist of the technical disclosure.” 37 CFR 1.72(b). Specifically, the abstract does not use plain language to identify the context (e.g., detecting liver lesions from CT images) or the solution.
A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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 1-14 (all claims) are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over the claims of U.S. Patent No. US 12493954 B2 in view of the prior art as applied below. US 12493954 B2 is a previous patent from the same inventor that is also analyzing contrast states. What is purported to be inventive here, i.e., the elapsed time index values, is obvious over the prior art (and is legally obvious as per the above examiner note).
Claims 1-14 (all claims) are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over the claims of copending Application Nos. 18/587962 and 18/587965 in view of the prior art as applied below. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
The last element of the first claim of 18/587962 is “and to estimate an elapsed period from start of injection of a contrast agent in the image on the basis of image analysis of the image,” which is the inventive concept here.
The claims of 18/587965 are much broader than the current claims, but as shown by, for example, the shared figures (such as Fig. 1 of both applications), the claims of 18/587965 read on the present claims.
All of the pending claims, the conflicting patent and the conflicting applications are all directed to using machine learning to track contrast states. Therefore, all of the conflicting patent and applications are directed to the same problem as the present application. Further, any differences between the present claims and the claims in any of the conflicting patent or applications are obvious in view of the prior art as applied below. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to combine the below prior art with any of the conflicting patent or applications for implementation details (especially as the patent claims lack implementation details). Based on the findings herein, this is an example of “(A) Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.” MPEP 2143.
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.
Claims 1-5 and 7-14 (all claims) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5 and 7-14 (all claims) are rejected due to conflicting disclosure between this application and one of the inventor’s earlier patents, US12493954B2.
The present invention is directed to determining the “contrast time phase” from an image that may lack contrast information. Specification, [0002]. The contrast time phase is specifically the elapsed time. See, e.g., Specification [0013]-[0018] repeatedly describing that the index values and contrast are understood as “elapsed time.” (These statements correspond to the claims.)
However, the inventor’s earlier patent, US12493954B2, says that this does not work:
SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION
However, even in the images captured at the same time elapsed since the start of the injection of the contrast agent, the contrast state may differ depending on, for example, the physique of a subject and the physical condition of the subject. Therefore, in a case in which the contrast time phase is determined using information of the injection start time of the contrast agent included in metadata and property analysis is performed, the performance of the property analysis may deteriorate due to a variation in the contrast time phase.
In addition, in a case in which the metadata does not include the information of the injection start time of the contrast agent, the property analysis is performed in a state in which the contrast time phase is not determined.
A system disclosed in JP2011-136030A determines whether or not the acquired image data has been obtained by contrast imaging, and it is difficult to determine the contrast time phase of the captured image.
One of ordinary skill in the art, comparing the present application to the inventor’s earlier work would see that the present application conflicts with the inventor’s earlier patent, and that the present application does not resolve this conflict. That this conflict has not been resolved shows that the specification lacks written description support.
Claims 1, 13, and 14 recite “determin[es/ing] the contrast state,” but this is unlimited functional claiming because it is reciting a result rather than the steps to accomplish it. MPEP 2173.05(g). Applicant may wish to narrow the claim to exclude the techniques described in the “Description of Related Art” section.
Claim 2 recites “statistically integrating,” but this is new matter. Applicant’s remarks refer to [0033], but that disclosure is for the amendment to claim 1. Here, the most relevant disclosure is specification [0072], but that states “using any statistical method.” However, this is too generic to support the claimed statistically integrating.
Claims 3 and 7 recite “learning model,” but this is unlimited functional claiming due to the wide variety of machine learning models. Naming a specific architecture, such as specification [0070]’s convolutional neural network, overcomes this rejection.
Dependent claims are likewise rejected. Claim 14 is rejected as per claim 13.
Claims 1-5 and 7-14 (all claims) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Claims 1-5 and 7-14 (all claims) are rejected for lack of enablement due to the above discussed conflict with the inventor’s earlier patent, US12493954B2. While each of the Wands factors have been considered (MPEP 2164.01(a)), the decisive factor is “(F) The amount of direction provided by the inventor.” Here, the inventor has explicitly provided guidance that this does not work. Additionally, for “(G) The existence of working examples,” there do not appear to be any working examples (e.g., all of the figures appear to be hypothetical as opposed to actual outputs). Given the conflict between the present specification and the inventor’s earlier patent, US12493954B2, the final Wands factor, “(H) The quantity of experimentation needed to make or use the invention based on the content of the disclosure” weighs against enablement because resolving this conflict is beyond routine experimentation.
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 1-5 and 7-14 (all claims) 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.
Claims 1, 13, and 14 recite “from a first image series captured,” but it is not clear if the capturing is a required step or not.
Claims 1, 13, and 14 recite “the estimated index values,” but this lacks sufficient antecedent basis. MPEP 2173.05(e). Note that this recitation of “values” is plural whereas the previous recitation is singular.
Claim 2 recites “determines the contrast state of the first image series on the basis of the integrated index value,” which differs from parent claim 1’s recitation “determine the contrast state of the first image series on the basis of each of a plurality of the estimated index values.” It is unclear if claim 2 is intended to further narrow claim 1 or if it is improperly redefining claim 1.
Claim 4 recites “integrating,” but the usage does not appear to match the plain meanings of computing an integral or making whole by bringing together physical parts.
Claim 4 recites “derives an elapsed time obtained,” but the conflict between the present tense of “derives” and the past tense of “obtained” is indefinite.
Dependent claims are likewise rejected.
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.
Claims 1-5 and 7-14 (all claims) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea (mental process) without significantly more.
Step 1:
Claim 1 (and its dependents) recite a device, and machines satisfy Step 1 of the eligibility test.
Claim 13 recites a method, and processes satisfy Step 1 of the eligibility test.
Claim 14 recites a non-transitory, computer-readable tangible recording medium, and manufactures satisfy Step 1 of the eligibility test.
Step 2A, prong one: All of the elements of the claims are a mental process because a person can look at a CT image and decide which contrast state is shown, or estimate when the picture was taken (see, e.g., the Sofka reference describing their process as automatic as opposed to being performed manually by clinicians). Further, the various models are also mental processes, see example 47, claim 2, element (d) (from the July 2024 AI subject matter eligibility examples). MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C) explains that use of a generic computer or in a computer environment is still a mental process. In particular, this section begins by citing Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 US 63 (1972). “The Supreme Court recognized this in Benson, determining that a mathematical algorithm for converting binary coded decimal to pure binary within a computer’s shift register was an abstract idea.” In Benson the Supreme Court did not separately analyze the computer hardware at issue; the specifics of what hardware was claimed is only included in an appendix to the decision.
Because there are no additional elements, no further analysis is required for Step 2A, prong two or Step 2B.
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)(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.
(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.
Claims 1-5 and 7-14 (all claims) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and/or (a)(2) as being anticipated by US20200334818A1 (“Canon”).
1. A contrast state determination device comprising:
at least one processor; and (Canon, Fig. 1, processing circuitry 17)
at least one memory that stores commands to be executed by the at least one processor, (Canon, Fig. 1, main memory 18)
wherein the at least one processor is configured to
acquire a plurality of two-dimensional images including slice images of a subject at different positions from a first image series captured after a contrast agent is injected into the subject, (Canon, claim 1, “acquire contrast image data generated by imaging a subject.” [0035] “… capable of acquiring contrast image data, for example, … a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) apparatus.” Canon’s MRI teaches the claimed slice images)
estimate an index value from each of the plurality of two-dimensional images, wherein the index value represents a likelihood of belonging to each of a plurality of contrast states, and (Canon, claim 1, “input the acquired contrast image data to a learned model to generate a time phase data classified according to a contrast state” Canon’s time phase data teach the claimed index value. See also Fig. 18 showing the relationship between the contrast states and time (e.g., Remarks of May 11, 2026, p. 22, bottom, acknowledging that Fig. 18’s phases are contrast states).)
determine the contrast state of the first image series on the basis of each of a plurality of the estimated index values. (Canon, Fig. 18. Specification, [0020] states that a “contrast state” includes “an arterial phase, a portal phase,” among others, as shown by Canon, Fig. 18 (as per the mapping of the above limitation, these phases teach the claimed index values).)
2. The contrast state determination device according to claim 1, wherein the at least one processor derives an integrated index value obtained by statistically integrating the plurality of index values and determines the contrast state of the first image series on the basis of the integrated index value. (Canon, Fig. 18. See also the discussion for claim 5.)
3. The contrast state determination device according to claim 2, further comprising:
a first learning model that, in a case where a two-dimensional image from an image series captured after the contrast agent is injected into the subject is input, outputs a likelihood of belonging to each of the plurality of contrast states, (Canon, claim 1 “input the acquired contrast image data to a learned model to generate a time phase data classified according to a contrast state”)
wherein the at least one processor inputs the plurality of two-dimensional images to the first learning model to estimate the plurality of index values. (Canon, claim 1 “input the acquired contrast image data to a learned model to generate a time phase data classified according to a contrast state”)
4. The contrast state determination device according to claim 1, wherein the index value is an elapsed time from the injection of the contrast agent into the subject, the elapsed time being estimated from the two-dimensional image, and (Canon, claim 1, “input the acquired contrast image data to a learned model to generate a time phase data classified according to a contrast state” Canon’s time phase data teach the claimed index value.)
the at least one processor derives an elapsed time obtained by integrating a plurality of the elapsed times which are the plurality of index values and determines the contrast state of the first image series on the basis of the integrated elapsed time. (Canon, Fig. 18. Note Canon’s time scale, shown in black.)
5. The contrast state determination device according to claim 4, wherein the at least one processor derives the integrated elapsed time obtained on the basis of a combination of plurality of probability distribution models having the elapsed time and the likelihood as parameters. (The claimed “on the basis of” includes use of neural networks, such as Canon’s. First, the specification shows that the computation does not need to actually be performed. See, e.g., specification [0017] stating that a conversion table can be used. Second, specification [0025] describes “Fig. 12 is a diagram schematically illustrating an example of a machine learning method for generating a regression model applied to the number-of-seconds distribution estimation unit.” As shown in Fig. 12, the convolutional neural network is based on the probability distribution (see, e.g., variable conversion 24). As explained in specification [0095], the machine learning of Fig. 12 is trained with traditional supervised learning, i.e., that the machine learning is “based on” the probability distribution models is a result of supervised learning, not the explicit use of such probability distribution models.
Canon’s various learned models include neural networks (e.g., [0089] “the learned neural network N1 and the learned parameter P1′ constitute the learned model D1.”), and Canon’s neural networks teach the claimed plurality of probability distribution models.)
7. The contrast state determination device according to claim 5, further comprising:
a second learning model that, in a case where a two-dimensional image from an image series captured after the contrast agent is injected into the subject is input, outputs the elapsed time from the injection of the contrast agent into the subject and the likelihood of the elapsed time, (Canon, claim 1 “input the acquired contrast image data to a learned model to generate a time phase data classified according to a contrast state.” Note that there is no “first” learning model recited in this claim.)
wherein the at least one processor inputs the plurality of two-dimensional images to the second learning model to estimate the plurality of elapsed times and the plurality of likelihoods. (Canon, claim 1 “input the acquired contrast image data to a learned model to generate a time phase data classified according to a contrast state”)
8. The contrast state determination device according to claim 4, further comprising: a conversion table in which the elapsed time from the injection of the contrast agent into the subject is associated with the contrast state, wherein the at least one processor determines the contrast state of the first image series on the basis of the integrated elapsed time and the conversion table. (Canon, Fig. 18. Canon’s time scale aligns with the different states, teaching the claimed table.)
Claim 9 is rejected as per claim 8.
10. The contrast state determination device according to claim 1, wherein the two-dimensional image is at least one of the slice image, (Canon, claim 1, “acquire contrast image data generated by imaging a subject.” [0035] “… capable of acquiring contrast image data, for example, … a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) apparatus.” Canon’s MRI teaches the claimed slice images)
a maximum intensity projection (MIP) image of a plurality of the slice images, or
an average image of the plurality of slice images. (Canon, [0049] “The 2D color Doppler image includes an average speed image representing moving state information”)
11. The contrast state determination device according to claim 1, wherein the first image series is a three-dimensional image including a liver of the subject, and (Canon, claim 8 “ultrasonic imaging of a liver”)
the contrast state includes at least one of a non-contrast phase, an arterial phase, a portal phase, or an equilibrium phase. (Canon, Fig. 18)
12. The contrast state determination device according to claim 1, wherein the first image series is a three-dimensional image including a kidney of the subject, and (Canon, [0038] “The imaging region may be a tissue that can specify a specific contrast state of a lesion area with a contrast agent, for example, the mammary gland or the pancreas.” Canon’s teaching of specifying a contrast state of a lesion area allows one to “at once envisage” the kidney. MPEP 2131.02(III). Should Applicant argue that the kidney is not anticipated, Applicant may wish to support its position by identifying disclosure that shows differences in how the kidney is treated differently than the liver (i.e., that kidney and liver are not easily interchangeable).)
the contrast state includes at least one of a non-contrast phase, a corticomedullary phase, a parenchymal phase, or an excretory phase. (Canon, Fig. 18. Canon’s equilibrium phase teaches the claimed excretory phase because the equilibrium phase is where the contrast agent leaves the body.)
Claims 13 and 14 are rejected as per claim 1. See also, Canon, [0161] “a program stored in the main memory 18.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. 20220012927 –[0021] “certain types of tissues (e.g., a tumor) appear different based on the amount of time that has elapsed after the contrast has been administered to the patient.”
20230206477 – [0005] “The dynamic contrast examination is a method in which, after an iodine contrast agent is intravenously injected into an arm, the same part is repeatedly imaged and a change in the part over time is observed.”
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID ORANGE whose telephone number is (571)270-1799. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 9-5.
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, Gregory Morse can be reached at 571-272-3838. 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.
/DAVID ORANGE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2663
Prosecution Insights