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 Objections
Claim 24 is objected to because of the- following informalities: the claim does not end with a period. See MPEP 608.01(m).
Appropriate correction is required.
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, 2, 4, 7, 8, 10, 12, 13, 18, 19, 21, 23, and 26-28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Murakami (US 2018/0052120 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Murakami discloses an image processing apparatus comprising: one or more processors, (Paragraph 0056, CPU of an image processing device) wherein the one or more processors acquire a processing target image generated by imaging a processing target, (Paragraph 0046, acquiring radiation image data of a test object) display the processing target image on a first region of a first display device, (Paragraph 0090 and figure 6, display of the radiation image data on a display unit) acquire a region-of-interest image in which a region-of-interest in the processing target is reproduced, (Paragraph 0093, a frame region of the radiation image data of the test object being magnified as magnified image data) display the region-of-interest image on a second region different from the first region of the first display device, or display the region-of-interest image on a second display device different from the first display device, (Paragraph 0093 and figure 6, display of the magnified image data positioned away from the radiation image data) and operate one of the processing target image or the region-of-interest image in conjunction with an operation on the other (Paragraph 0093, movement of the frame region in the radiation image data changes the display of the magnified image data).
Regarding claim 2, Murakami discloses wherein the one or more processors acquire a transmission image generated based on a light ray or radiation transmitted through the processing target, as the processing target image, (Paragraphs 0046 and 0049, acquiring radiation image data of the test object obtained using X-rays) and display the transmission image as the processing target image (Paragraph 0090 and figure 6, display of the radiation image data on the display unit).
Regarding claim 4, Murakami discloses wherein the one or more processors acquire a processing target image operation command representing an operation on the processing target image, (Paragraph 0093, movement of the frame region in the radiation image data according to keyboard input) and operate the processing target image in accordance with the processing target image operation command, and operate the region-of-interest image in conjunction with the operation on the processing target image (Paragraph 0093, the frame region in the radiation image data moves and the magnified image data changes according to the movement).
Regarding claim 7, Murakami discloses wherein the one or more processors acquire a region-of-interest image operation command representing an operation on the region-of-interest image, (Paragraph 0093, setting a frame region using keyboard input) and operate the region-of-interest image in accordance with the region-of-interest image operation command, and operate the processing target image in conjunction with the operation on the region-of-interest image (Paragraph 0093, movement of the frame region in the radiation image data changes the display of the magnified image data).
Regarding claim 8, Murakami discloses wherein the one or more processors acquire a region-of-interest image change command for changing a position of the region-of-interest image, as the region-of-interest image operation command, and change the position of the region-of-interest image in accordance with the region-of-interest image change command (Paragraph 0093, movement of the frame region in the radiation image data according to keyboard input).
Regarding claim 10, Murakami discloses wherein the one or more processors automatically detect the region-of-interest from the processing target image, (Paragraphs 0079-0085, detection of a differential region) generate the region-of-interest image based on the automatically detected region-of-interest in the processing target image, (Paragraph 0093, determination of the frame region to include the differential region) and acquire the generated region-of-interest image (Figure 6, display of magnified image data for the framed region).
Regarding claim 12, Murakami discloses wherein the one or more processors acquire the region-of-interest image generated in advance, based on the region-of-interest detected in advance from the processing target image (Paragraphs 0079-0085 and 0093, determination of a differential region that is included in the frame region).
Regarding claim 13, Murakami discloses wherein the one or more processors receive correction for the region-of-interest, and correct the region-of-interest image based on the correction (Paragraph 0093, the magnified image data can change based on movement of the framed region using a keyboard).
Regarding claim 18, Murakami discloses wherein the one or more processors receive a ruler operation on one of the processing target image or the region-of-interest image, and display a ruler operation on the other corresponding to the ruler operation on the one, in accordance with the ruler operation on the one (Paragraph 0093 and figure 6, a scale is displayed in the magnified image data for the framed region of the radiation image data).
Regarding claim 19, Murakami discloses wherein the one or more processors acquire a type of the region-of-interest, (Paragraph 0087, determination of a differential region) display the type of the region-of-interest on the first region, (Figure 6, display of the differential region on the radiation image data) and display the type of the region-of-interest on the second region or the second display device in association with the type of the region-of-interest displayed on the first region (Figure 6, display of the differential data in the magnified image data).
Regarding claim 21, Murakami discloses wherein the one or more processors switch between a first display mode in which only the processing target image is displayed and a second display mode in which the processing target image and the region-of-interest image are displayed (Paragraphs 0093-0094, the radiation image data can be displayed with the magnified image data and the magnified image data can be turned off).
Regarding claim 23, Murakami discloses wherein the one or more processors acquire, as the processing target image, an image generated by imaging an industrial product (Paragraph 0003, industrial products).
Regarding claims 26 and 27, similar reasoning as discussed in claim 1 is applied.
Regarding claim 28, Murakami discloses a non-transitory, computer-readable tangible recording medium on which a program foe causing, when read by a computer, the computer to execute the image display method according to claim 27 is recorded (Paragraph 0173, medium recording a program to implement image processing).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murakami (US 2018/0052120 A1) in view of Lalena et al. (US 2021/0186453 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Murakami discloses all limitations as discussed in claim 1. Murakami further discloses wherein the one or more processors acquire a transmission image generated based on a light ray or radiation transmitted through the processing target, as the processing target image (Paragraphs 0046 and 0049, acquiring radiation image data of the test object obtained using X-rays). Murakami does not clearly disclose, generate a frequency selection image by performing frequency selection processing on the transmission image, and display the frequency selection image as the processing target image. Lalena discloses processing X-ray images using processes such as expansion/compression processing and frequency enhancement processing (Paragraph 0034). Lalena’s technique of processing X-ray images using processes such as expansion/compression processing and frequency enhancement processing would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art to be applicable to the displayed radiation image data of a test object obtained using X-rays of Murakami and the results would have been predictable in the processing of radiation image data of a test object using X-rays using processes such as expansion/compression processing and frequency enhancement processing for display. Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murakami (US 2018/0052120 A1) in view of Hunt et al. (US 2013/0293539 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Murakami discloses all limitations as discussed in claim 4. Murakami does not clearly disclose wherein the one or more processors acquire a processing target image change command for changing a position of the processing target image, as the processing target image operation command, and change the position of the processing target image in accordance with the processing target image change command. Hunt discloses receiving user input for changing the position of a displayed image (Paragraph 0008). Hunt’s technique for receiving user input for changing the position of a displayed image would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art to be applicable to the displayed radiation image data of Murakami and the results would have been predictable in the changing the position of displayed radiation image data. Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 6 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murakami (US 2018/0052120 A1) in view of Shaked (US 2019/0242714 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Murakami discloses all limitations as discussed in claim 4. Murakami does not clearly disclose wherein the one or more processors acquire a processing target image change command for changing a magnification ratio of the processing target image, as the processing target image operation command, and change magnification of the processing target image in accordance with the processing target image change command. Shaked discloses modifying a displayed image by changing its magnification level (Paragraph 0081). Shaked’s technique of modifying a displayed image by changing its magnification would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art to be applicable to the radiation image data of Murakami and the results would have been predictable in the display of radiation image data with a change in magnification. Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 9, Murakami discloses all limitations as discussed in claim 4. Murakami does not clearly disclose wherein the one or more processors acquire a region-of-interest image change command for changing a magnification ratio of the region-of-interest image, as the region-of-interest image operation command, and change magnification of the region-of-interest image in accordance with the region-of-interest image change command. Shaked discloses modifying a displayed image by changing its magnification level (Paragraph 0081). Shaked’s technique of modifying a displayed image by changing its magnification would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art to be applicable to the magnified image data of a region in radiation image data of Murakami and the results would have been predictable in the modification of displayed magnified image data of a region in radiation image data with a change in magnification. Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 11 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murakami (US 2018/0052120 A1) in view of Wang et al. (US 2023/0078218 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Murakami discloses all limitations as discussed in claim 10. Murakami does not clearly disclose wherein the one or more processors store the processing target image and an automatic detection result of the region-of-interest in association with each other, generate a first learning model that is trained using a set of the processing target image and the automatic detection result of the region-of-interest as learning data, and apply the first learning model to the automatic detection of the region-of-interest. Wang discloses training a detection model for detecting certain objects using stored training image and training image ROI (region of interest) data (Paragraphs 0001 and 0053). Wang’s technique of training a detection model for detecting certain objects using stored training image and training image ROI data would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art to be applicable to the frame region images having detected differential regions of Murakami and the results would have been predictable in the storing of frame region images and detected differential regions that can be used to train a detection for detecting certain objects. Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 14, Murakami discloses all limitations as discussed in claim 13. Murakami does not clearly disclose wherein the one or more processors store the region-of-interest image and a correction result of the region-of-interest image in association with each other, generate a second learning model that is trained using a set of the region-of-interest image and the correction result of the region-of-interest image as learning data, and apply the second learning model to the automatic detection of the region-of-interest. Wang discloses training a detection model for detecting certain objects using stored training image and training image ROI (region of interest) data (Paragraphs 0001 and 0053). Wang’s technique of training a detection model for detecting certain objects using stored training image and training image ROI data would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art to be applicable to the moved frame regions for magnified image data having detected differential regions of Murakami and the results would have been predictable in the storing of frame region images having moved detected differential regions that can be used to train a detection for detecting certain objects. Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 15 and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murakami (US 2018/0052120 A1) in view of Higashi (US 2018/0247343 A1).
Regarding claim 15, Murakami discloses all limitations as discussed in claim 1. Murakami does not clearly disclose wherein the one or more processors superimpose and display grids that are linked to each other on the processing target image and the region-of-interest image. Higashi discloses superimposing of vertical and horizontal grid lines on an image for display (Paragraph 0087). Higashi’s technique of superimposing of vertical and horizontal grid lines on an image for display would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art to be applicable to the display of radiation image data with a magnified image data portion of the radiation image data of Murakami and the results would have been predictable in the superimposing of vertical and horizontal grid lines on radiation image data for display with a magnified image data portion of the radiation image data with superimposed grid lines. Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 24, discloses all limitations as discussed in claim 1. Murakami does not clearly disclose wherein the one or more processors superimposes, on the region-of-interest image, a grid which is the same as a grid superimposed on the processing target image Higashi discloses superimposing of vertical and horizontal grid lines on an image for display (Paragraph 0087). Higashi’s technique of superimposing of vertical and horizontal grid lines on an image for display would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art to be applicable to the display of radiation image data with a magnified image data portion of the radiation image data of Murakami and the results would have been predictable in the superimposing of vertical and horizontal grid lines on radiation image data for display with a magnified image data portion of the radiation image data with superimposed grid lines. Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murakami (US 2018/0052120 A1) in view of Sodhi et al. (US 2020/0374498 A1).
Regarding claim 16, Murakami discloses all limitations as discussed in claim 1. Murakami does not clearly disclose wherein the one or more processors receive a position designation operation for designating a position on one of the processing target image or the region-of-interest image, and perform emphasis processing to emphasize a position in the other corresponding to the position designated in the one, in accordance with the position designation operation on the one. Sodhi discloses user selection of a point, surface, or object in an image and highlights the selected point, surface, or object (Paragraph 0122).
Sodhi’s technique of user selection of a point, surface, or object in an image and highlights the selected point, surface, or object would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art to be applicable to the radiation image data of Murakami and the results would have been predictable in the user selection of a point, surface, or object in radiation image data and highlighting the selected point, surface, or object. Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murakami (US 2018/0052120 A1) in view of Krupnik (US 9,412,054 B1).
Regarding claim 17, Murakami discloses all limitations as discussed in claim 1. Murakami does not clearly disclose wherein the one or more processors receive a position designation operation for designating a position on one of the processing target image or the region-of-interest image, and display a pointer at a position in the other corresponding to the position designated in the one, in accordance with the position designation operation on the one. Krupnik discloses user indication of a region of interest in an image by placing an arrow in a region in the image (Column 22, lines 21-30). Krupnik’s technique of allowing user indication of a region of interest in an image by placing an arrow in a region in the image would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art to be applicable to radiation image data having a detected differential region within a framed region of Murakami and the results would have been predictable in user indication of a differential region in radiation image data with a placed arrow that is visible in the framed region for producing magnified image data. Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murakami (US 2018/0052120 A1) in view of Akira (US 2021/0042561 A1).
Regarding claim 20, Murakami discloses all limitations as discussed in claim 1. Murakami does not clearly disclose wherein the one or more processors display the processing target image in grayscale, and display the region-of-interest image in color. Akira discloses switching the display of images in color and grayscale (Paragraph 0046). Akira’s technique of switching the display of images in color and grayscale would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art to be applicable to the radiation image data and magnified image data of Murakami and the results would have been predictable in the switching of the display of radiation image data and magnification data to either color grayscale. Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murakami (US 2018/0052120 A1) in view of Kato et al. (US 2019/0107988 A1).
Regarding claim 22, Murakami discloses all limitations as discussed in claim 1. Murakami does not clearly disclose wherein the one or more processors display the region-of-interest image which has the same shape and the same size as the processing target image. Kato discloses resizing an image to match the size of another image (Paragraph 0116). Kato’s technique of resizing an image to match the size of another image would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art to be applicable to the magnification image data associated with radiation image data of Murakami and the results would have been predictable in the resizing of magnification image data to match the size of the radiation image data where if the sizes are the same, both image data would have the same shape. Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 25 is 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.
Regarding claim 25, the prior art does not clearly disclose the image processing apparatus according to claim 18, wherein, in a case where either one of the ruler operation on the processing target image and the ruler operation on the region-of-interest image is interrupted, the one or more processors causes the one of the ruler operation which is interrupted to be taken over as another of the ruler operation.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Hattori et al. (US 2020/0155096 A1) discloses frequency processing of X-ray images.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHI HOANG whose telephone number is (571)270-3417. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00-5:00.
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, JASON CHAN can be reached at (571)272-3022. 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.
/PHI HOANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2619