DETAILED ACTION
This office action is responsive to communication(s) filed on 4/6/2026.
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 .
Specification
The new title of the invention submitted on 4/6/2026 is acceptable.
Claims Status
Claims 1-12 are pending and are currently being examined.
Claims 1, 9 and 10 are independent.
Claims 11 and 12 are newly added.
Claims 1-4 and 6-10 are newly amended.
Claim Interpretation
Concerning the claim language of claim 1 , 9 and 10, the following limitation(s) is/are in intended use format, which does not move to distinguish over the prior art (see MPEP §§ 2103, 2111.02 and 2114):
“for shortening the imaging time of a plurality of examinations of the same patient”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 1-12 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, 9 and 10 are indefinite. The claims describe selecting “one examination information” from a displayed plurality, but then state that “another examination information” of the same patient is also selected to reduce imaging time. It is unclear what differentiates these two selection steps, or how the method transitions from specifying one item to specifying another. For purposes of compact prosecution only, the examiner interprets the limitation(s) as including the specifying of multiple examination information, e.g., by displaying them. Correction required.
Claims 2-8 and 11-12 are also rejected as the depend on the claim(s) above.
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.
(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) 1-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hayashi; Naoki (hereinafter Hayashi – US 20150117607 A1).
Independent Claim 1:
Hayashi teaches:
A medical imaging control apparatus comprising a hardware processor that:
causes a display to display an examination list including a plurality of examination information of a same patient and different patients; (display of plurality of examinations of a same patient, see fig. 10. Furthermore, although fig. 10 doesn’t display the examinations of the same patients and different patients, it is interpreted that the console is configured to displays the examinations of different patients as well, because there are orders of same and different patients stored in the stored in the order information storage member 59, fig. 9 and ¶¶ 96 and 141. The imaging order information includes imaging portion and imaging direction, and other information such as imaging order ID, patient ID, etc., ¶ 93 and figs. 9-10. Herein, it is broadly interpreted that “examinations” include pending examinations, such as those reflected in the “imaging to be performed” list in fig. 10. Herein, it is broadly interpreted that " display an examination list including a plurality of examination information of a same patient and different patients" does not necessarily require their “simultaneous” display because the word "and" does not inherently impose a temporal restriction.)
specifies one examination information from the plurality of examination information displayed on the display; (if a plurality of examinations have been selected, ¶ 98 and fig. 10, a first examination is selected by the console as a first focus examination [specifies one examination], as reflected by button and cursor in figs. 10-11. e.g., based on the order of registration of pieces, namely, in order of IDs P1, ¶ 107 and fig. 10. Herein, it is broadly interpreted that “specifies one examination from the plurality of examinations” includes the specifying of one or more examinations, which doesn’t necessarily have to be a user selection)
specifies, from the plurality of examination information, another examination information of the same patient as the specified one examination information for shortening the imaging time of a plurality of examinations of the same patient; (by also displaying the additionally selected examinations, ¶ 99 and figs. 10-11, the system/console also specifies “another examination information of the same patient as the specified one examination information”. As mentioned in the claim interpretation section above, claim language of claims 1 , 9 and 10, the following limitation(s) is/are in intended use format, which does not move to distinguish over the prior art (see MPEP §§ 2103, 2111.02 and 2114): “for shortening the imaging time of a plurality of examinations of the same patient”. Although this phrase doesn’t move to distinguish over the prior art, in Hayashi, the displaying of multiple examination information on the same display is interpreted as “shortening the imaging time of a plurality of examinations of the same patient”)
causes the display to display an imaging control screen including a list of imaging order information corresponding to the specified one examination information (the display is modified to display the “imaging order information”, here the first focus on the list is being displayed enclosed within a border/frame, fig. 11 and ¶¶ 102 and 104. This list include imaging order information, such as imaging portion P7 and imaging direction P8, ¶ 93 and fig. 9. Herein “imaging order information” is interpreted as including information such as “imaging direction(s)” or other instructions for the imaging staff [such as radiologist] to following during the imaging process)
and imaging order information corresponding to the another examination information; (the display also list the other imaging order information with listed frame-enclosed first focus, fig. 11 and ¶¶ 102 and 104.)
and causes the display to display on the imaging control screen the imaging order information corresponding to the specified one examination information so as to be distinguishable from the imaging order information corresponding to the another examination information, wherein each of the examination information includes the imaging order information. (because the prioritized selected imaging order information is frame-enclosed, it is distinguishable from the other information, fig. 11 and ¶¶ 102 and 104. Each of the examination information include imaging order information, e.g., imaging portion and imaging direction, and other information such as imaging order ID, patient ID, etc. [wherein each of the examination information includes the imaging order information], ¶ 93 and figs. 9-10)
Claim 2:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Hayashi further teaches:
wherein the hardware processor causes the display to display the imaging order information corresponding to the one examination information in a manner different from the imaging order information corresponding to the another examination information. (because the focused imaging order information is frame-enclosed, it is distinguishable, i.e., displayed in a manner different from the imaging order information corresponding to the another examination information, from the other information, fig. 11 and ¶¶ 102 and 104.)
Claim 3:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Hayashi further teaches:
wherein:
the imaging control screen is a second screen; (screens depicted on figs 10 and 11 are different screens)
the hardware processor causes the examination list including the plurality of examinations to be displayed on a first screen; (see fig. 10 and ¶ 34, first screen)
the hardware processor causes the imaging order information corresponding to the one examination information and the imaging order information corresponding to the another examination information to be displayed in list form on the second screen; (see fig. 11 and ¶ 35, first screen)
and the hardware processor, in response to a transition from the first screen to the second screen, causes the display to display at least one piece of imaging order information corresponding to the one examination information so as to be distinguishable as being the imaging order information corresponding to the specified one examination information. (when the screen in fig. 10 transitions to fig. 11, the focused examination is distinguished as reflected in fig. 11)
Claim 4:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Hayashi further teaches:
further comprising a storage storing supplementary information pertaining to the plurality of examination information. (storage member 59, ¶ 87 and fig. 8, in which the imaging order information has been registered/input and stored, ¶¶ 96 and 141. The imaging order information includes supplementary information, such as imaging order ID [examination identification information], patient ID, etc., ¶ 93 and figs. 9-10)
Claim 5:
The rejection of claim 4 is incorporated. Hayashi further teaches:
wherein the supplementary information is at least one of the following:
patient-specifying information, an imaging area, examination identification information, an examination reception number, an examination registration date, an examination reservation date, and an imaging procedure. (the displayed information is associated with a number of supplementary information, such as imaging order ID [examination identification information], patient ID, etc., ¶ 93 and figs. 9-10)
Claim 6:
The rejection of claim 4 is incorporated. Hayashi further teaches:
wherein the hardware processor causes the display to display at least one piece of imaging order information corresponding to the one examination information so as to be distinguishable as being the imaging order information corresponding to the specified one examination information, on the basis of the supplementary information. (the icons I, including the first icon, which is distinguishable, are arranged in the order of the "Imaging Order IDs" P1 [on the basis of the supplementary information] (see FIG. 10, etc.), ¶¶ 102 and 104)
Claim 7:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Hayashi further teaches:
further comprising an operation acceptor that accepts an operation of selecting the one examination information from the plurality of examination information, wherein the hardware processor specifies the one examination information on the basis of the operation of the operation acceptor. (based on a selection of a button H12 to the left of the examination, after the user clicks on the enter button H13 [an operation acceptor that accepts an operation], the display changes as reflected in fig. 11, ¶¶ 98-99 and fig. 10)
Claim 8:
The rejection of claim 4 is incorporated. Hayashi further teaches:
wherein the hardware processor specifies the one examination from the plurality of examinations on the basis of the supplementary information. (the icons I, including the first icon, which is distinguishable and corresponds to order ID 001, are arranged in the order of the "Imaging Order IDs" P1 [on the basis of the supplementary information] (see FIG. 10, etc.), ¶¶ 102 and 104)
Independent Claims 9 and 10:
Claims 9 and 10 are directed to a system and method for accomplishing the functions of the apparatus of in claim 1, and are rejected using similar rationale(s).
Claim 11:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Hayashi further teaches:
wherein the another examination information is specified based on selection condition information stored in a storage. (as mentioned above for claim 1, if a plurality of examinations have been selected [based on selection condition], ¶ 98 and fig. 10, a first examination is selected by the console as a first focus examination [specifies one examination], as reflected by button and cursor in figs. 10-11, and also displays the additionally selected examinations [the another examination information], ¶ 99 and figs. 10-11, the system/console also specifies “another examination information of the same patient as the specified one examination information”. Because the console uses programmed instructions stored in memory, see ¶ 86, the condition information for specification/displaying is “information stored in a storage”)
Claim 12:
The rejection of claim 11 is incorporated. Hayashi further teaches:
further comprising an operation acceptor that accepts an operation of selecting the one examination information from the plurality of examination information, wherein the hardware processor specifies the one examination information on the basis of the operation of the operation acceptor. (the selections on fig. 10, and subsequent display of the information on fig. 10 are implemented by the user interacting with selection buttons H12 [operation acceptor], and then presenting the “Enter” button H13 [operation acceptor], see ¶¶ 98-99 and fig. 10. )
Response to Comments/Arguments
Claim Interpretation:
The applicant describes a difference between examination information and image order information as: “The image order information D3 is information for each imaging unit and indicates imaging conditions for each individual imaging, while the examination information D1 includes the image order information D3 and other information such as examination date and time, and the number of imagings”, see Remarks Pg(s) 10.
However, it is herein noted that the Instant Specification doesn’t provide a special definition for the terms and are not limited such interpretation.
101:
Applicant’s 101 arguments, Remarks Pg(s) 9, have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 101 rejection has been withdrawn.
102:
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive and/or are otherwise moot in view of the new ground of rejection presented above.
First, concerning claim 1, the applicant alleges that “Hayashi does not specify another examination information of the same patient as specified in the one examination information for shortening the imaging time of a plurality of examinations of the same patient”, Remarks Pg(s) 10.
The examiner respectfully disagrees because:
Hayashi does teach the limitation, as presented in the new grounds of rejection in the 102 rejection section above.
As mentioned, in the Claim Interpretation section above, the phrase “for shortening the imaging time of a plurality of examinations of the same patient” is in intended use format and does not move to distinguish over the prior art.
Second, concerning claim 1, the applicant alleges that “Hayashi fails to teach or suggest that the items are specified to shorten the imaging time of a plurality of examinations of the same patient. Rather, the screen H2 is based on selections by an operator from a previous screen H1.”, Remarks Pg(s) 11.
The examiner respectfully disagrees for the reason(s) above. Furthermore, as mentioned in the 102 rejection section above, although the phrase “to shorten the imaging time of a plurality of examinations of the same patient” doesn’t move to distinguish over the prior art, in Hayashi, the displaying of multiple examination information on the same display is interpreted as “shortening the imaging time of a plurality of examinations of the same patient”.
Third, the applicant relies on the argument(s) above to allege patentability of the remaining claims. Remarks Pg(s) 11.
The examiner respectfully disagrees for the reason(s) mentioned above.
Conclusion
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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Below is a list of these references, including why they are pertinent:
Shiibashi, Takao et al. US 20040240624 A1, is pertinent to a potential amendment to claim 1 for disclosing “simultaneously” displaying examinations of different patients (¶ 272 and figs. 15 and 17).
Sasano; Yasuhiko US 20090175417 A1, is pertinent to claim 1 for disclosing a medical information processing device and in particular, a medical information processing device to display a medical image generated by an image generation device based on examination order information and supplementary information, so that an image examiner may confirm and modify the medical image and the supplementary information thereof, ¶ 1 and figs. 4 and 7.
Moriyasu; Takayoshi et al. (US 20190113358 A1), is pertinent to claim 3 for disclosing that the concept of transitioning from one screen to another was well understood, routine, conventional computer activity, ¶ 19.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GABRIEL S MERCADO whose telephone number is (408)918-7537. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8am-5pm (Eastern Time).
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, Kieu Vu can be reached at (571) 272-4057. 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.
/Gabriel Mercado/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2171
Prosecution Insights