Office Action Predictor
Last updated: April 16, 2026
Application No. 18/596,666

MEDICAL IMAGE DISPLAY APPARATUS, MEDICAL IMAGE DISPLAY SYSTEM, MEDICAL IMAGE DISPLAY METHOD, AND RECORDING MEDIUM

Non-Final OA §102
Filed
Mar 06, 2024
Examiner
MISTRY, ONEAL R
Art Unit
2674
Tech Center
2600 — Communications
Assignee
Konica Minolta, INC.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
87%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 2m
To Grant
97%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 87% — above average
87%
Career Allow Rate
560 granted / 642 resolved
+25.2% vs TC avg
Moderate +10% lift
Without
With
+10.1%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 2m
Avg Prosecution
6 currently pending
Career history
648
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
14.7%
-25.3% vs TC avg
§103
51.7%
+11.7% vs TC avg
§102
6.1%
-33.9% vs TC avg
§112
20.9%
-19.1% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 642 resolved cases

Office Action

§102
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 . DETAILED ACTION The United States Patent & Trademark Office appreciates the application that is submitted by the inventor/assignee. The United States Patent & Trademark Office reviewed the following application and has made the following comments below. Priority This application claims benefit of foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) of JP 2023-048405, filed in Japan on 3/24/2023. 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. Claim(s) 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Backhaus (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 20110015941, hereafter referred to as Backhaus). In regards to Claim 1, Backhaus teaches a medical image display apparatus (paragraph 25-paragraph 30, Backhaus) comprising: a display (paragraph 32, paragraph 33, Backhaus teaches a display system that allows for user interface for display of images.) that is capable of displaying a first medical image acquired from a first server (paragraph 26-30, Backhaus teaches image system that stores images for the patient for radiology) and a second medical image acquired from a second server (paragraph 71-paragraph 75, Backhaus teaches accessing images data from different servers, and the Backhaus teaches using servers.), wherein the display displays information indicating that the first medical image and the second medical image coexist (paragraph 95-paragraph 101, Backhaus teaches query other servers with patient ID to determine patient information and then translating the different images to be reviewed by the radiologist; Figure 5 item 530, Backhaus teaches the system allows for Patient ID query and the if the information is found of the patient ID then the system establishes a direct connection with the medical facility and requests patient information.). In regards to Claim 2, Backhaus teaches wherein the display displays the first medical image and the second medical image to be distinguishable from one another (paragraph 8, Backhaus teaches display medical images from one or more medical facilities). In regards to Claim 3, Backhaus teaches wherein the first server and the second server belong to different medical facilities (paragraph 8, Backhaus teaches display medical images from one or more medical facilities, the Examiner interprets that they are in different facilities since the there is more than one.). In regards to Claim 4, Backhaus teaches wherein the first server and the second server store pieces of patient information on a patient with different pieces of individual identification information on the patient (Figure 5, paragraph 120-paragraph 125, Backahus). In regards to Claim 5, Backhaus teaches wherein the second medical image is acquired from the second server by a name-based aggregation search (paragraph 127, paragraph 103, paragraph 35, Backhaus). In regards to Claim 6, Backhaus teaches a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing a program that causes a hardware processor of a medical image display apparatus (paragraph 25-paragraph 30, Backhaus) to: cause a display (paragraph 32, paragraph 33, Backhaus teaches a display system that allows for user interface for display of images.) to display a first medical image acquired from a first server (paragraph 26-30, Backhaus teaches image system that stores images for the patient for radiology) and a second medical image acquired from a second server (paragraph 71-paragraph 75, Backhaus teaches accessing images data from different servers, and the Backhaus teaches using servers.); and cause the display to display information indicating that the first medical image and the second medical image coexist (paragraph 95-paragraph 101, Backhaus teaches query other servers with patient ID to determine patient information and then translating the different images to be reviewed by the radiologist; Figure 5 item 530, Backhaus teaches the system allows for Patient ID query and the if the information is found of the patient ID then the system establishes a direct connection with the medical facility and requests patient information.). In regards to Claim 7, Backhaus teaches wherein the program causes the hardware processor to cause the display to display the first medical image and the second medical image to be distinguishable from one another (paragraph 8, Backhaus teaches display medical images from one or more medical facilities). In regards to Claim 8, Backhaus teaches wherein the first server and the second server belong to different medical facilities (paragraph 8, Backhaus teaches display medical images from one or more medical facilities, the Examiner interprets that they are in different facilities since the there is more than one.). In regards to Claim 9, Backhaus teaches wherein the first server and the second server store pieces of patient information on a patient with different pieces of individual identification information on the patient (Figure 5, paragraph 120-paragraph 125, Backahus). In regards to Claim 10, Backhaus teaches wherein the second medical image is acquired from the second server by name-based aggregation (paragraph 127, paragraph 103, paragraph 35, Backhaus). In regards to Claim 11, Backhaus teaches a medical image display system comprising a display (paragraph 32, paragraph 33, Backhaus teaches a display system that allows for user interface for display of images.) that is capable of displaying a first medical image acquired from a first server (paragraph 26-30, Backhaus teaches image system that stores images for the patient for radiology) and a second medical image acquired from a second server (paragraph 71-paragraph 75, Backhaus teaches accessing images data from different servers, and the Backhaus teaches using servers.), wherein the display displays information indicating that the first medical image and the second medical image coexist (paragraph 95-paragraph 101, Backhaus teaches query other servers with patient ID to determine patient information and then translating the different images to be reviewed by the radiologist; Figure 5 item 530, Backhaus teaches the system allows for Patient ID query and the if the information is found of the patient ID then the system establishes a direct connection with the medical facility and requests patient information.). In regards to Claim 12, Backhaus teaches a medical image display method comprising: causing a display (paragraph 32, paragraph 33, Backhaus teaches a display system that allows for user interface for display of images.) to display a first medical image acquired from a first server (paragraph 26-30, Backhaus teaches image system that stores images for the patient for radiology) and a second medical image acquired from a second server (paragraph 71-paragraph 75, Backhaus teaches accessing images data from different servers, and the Backhaus teaches using servers.); and causing the display to display information indicating that the first medical image and the second medical image coexist (paragraph 95-paragraph 101, Backhaus teaches query other servers with patient ID to determine patient information and then translating the different images to be reviewed by the radiologist; Figure 5 item 530, Backhaus teaches the system allows for Patient ID query and the if the information is found of the patient ID then the system establishes a direct connection with the medical facility and requests patient information.). Pertinent Art The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure. Wisser et al U.S. Patent Publication No. 2022/0351834. Starobients et al U.S. Patent Publication No. 2021/0127976. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ONEAL R MISTRY whose telephone number is (313)446-4912. The examiner can normally be reached on 9am-5pm. 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. /ONEAL R MISTRY/ Examiner, Art Unit 2665
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Mar 06, 2024
Application Filed
Jan 03, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102
Apr 06, 2026
Response Filed

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12586382
METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR IN-VEHICLE SELF-SUPERVISED TRAINING OF PERCEPTION FUNCTIONS FOR AN AUTOMATED DRIVING SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12536912
METHOD FOR PREDICTING PEDESTRIAN CROSSING BEHAVIOR FOR INTERSECTION
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 27, 2026
Patent 12530762
METHOD FOR MEASURING ACTUAL AREA OF DEFECT, AND METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR TESTING DISPLAY PANEL
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 20, 2026
Patent 12217482
PROCESSING APPARATUS, PROCESSING METHOD, AND COMPUTER READABLE MEDIUM
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 04, 2025
Patent 12217544
METHOD, APPARATUS AND DEVICE FOR RECOGNIZING THREE-DIMENSIONAL GESTURE BASED ON MARK POINTS
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 04, 2025
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
87%
Grant Probability
97%
With Interview (+10.1%)
2y 2m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 642 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in for Full Analysis

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month