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 .
Priority
Acknowledgement is made of Applicant’s claim of priority from the Japanese Patent Application No. 2023-060054, filed on April 3, 2023.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (“IDS”) filed on 03/29/2024 has been reviewed and the listed reference has been considered.
Drawings
The 11-page drawings have been considered and placed on record in the file.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1 and 4 is 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. Specifically, Claim 1 recites “the analysis parameter”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for an analysis parameter in the claim. Additionally, claim 4 recites “the method for acquiring the analysis parameter”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for a method for acquiring in the claim.
The preamble in Claim 4 reads “The dynamic image analysis device”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for a dynamic image analysis device in the claims. Examiner believes the preamble should recite “The dynamic image analysis apparatus”.
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 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The independent claims 1, 10 and 11 respectively recite an apparatus, a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium and a method for correcting an image analysis parameter. With respect to analysis of independent claims 1, 10 and 11:
Step 1:
With regard to Step 1, the instant claims are directed to an apparatus, a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium and a method and therefore, the claims are directed to one of the statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong One:
With regard to 2A, Prong One, consider independent claim 1, the limitations of “acquiring a dynamic image obtained by radiographing a dynamic state of a subject”, “analyzing the dynamic image using one or more types of analysis parameters”, “generating an analysis result image”, “determining whether the analysis parameter needs to be corrected” and “notifying the analysis parameter determined to require correction”5, as drafted, recite an abstract idea, such as a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind of a person, i.e., concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion). That is, an analyst analyzing the acquired dynamic images, may choose a parameter to analyze the image, generate an analysis result, determine whether the analysis parameter needs to be corrected and notify the determination. This is the concept that falls under the grouping of abstract ideas mental processes, i.e., a concept performed in the human mind, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion of an analyst.
Step 2A, Prong Two:
The 2019 PEG defines the phrase “evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception”. Therefore, additional elements, or a combination of additional elements in the claim, are required to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception. In the instant case, the additional elements/limitations in the claims, i.e., a hardware processor merely regarded as adding insignificant extra-solution activities to the judicial exception, and do not apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception as an indication of integration of the judicial exception into a practical application. Accordingly, the above-mentioned additional elements/limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application; and therefore, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2B:
Because the claims fail under Step 2A, the claims are further evaluated under Step 2B. The claims herein do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, because as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into practical application, the additional elements/limitations to perform the steps, amount to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity. Mere program instructions to apply an exception using generic components cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, claims 1, 10 and 11 are not patent eligible.
Further, with regard to dependent claims 2-9 viewed individually, these additional steps, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations as an abstract idea, and do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
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)(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 1-4, 7, 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Shimamura (US 2020/0034964 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Shimamura teaches, A dynamic image analysis apparatus comprising: a hardware processor, (Shimamura, ¶0013: “a dynamic image analysis apparatus includes a hardware processor”) wherein the hardware processor, acquires a dynamic image obtained by radiographing (Shimamura, ¶0057: “analysis apparatus according to this embodiment receives an X-ray dynamic image”) a dynamic state of a subject, (Shimamura, ¶0067: “images indicating the dynamic state of the object”) analyzes the dynamic image using one or more types of analysis parameters, generates an analysis result image, (Shimamura, ¶0012: “obtain a blood flow analysis image using a relatively simple method which analyzes a dynamic image”; analysis type is interpreted as blood flow analysis) determines whether the analysis parameter needs to be corrected, (Shimamura, ¶0153: “amount of movement between a predetermined number of frame images (two or more continuous frame images) may be calculated”) and notifies the analysis parameter determined to require correction. (Shimamura, ¶0159: “a warning indicating that there is movement that becomes a blood flow artifact is preferably displayed”).
Regarding claim 2, Shimamura teaches, The dynamic image analysis apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the hardware processor, calculates reliability of the analysis parameter, (Shimamura, ¶0285: “remove the frame range with low reliability from the blood flow analysis target”) and determines a necessity of correction of the analysis parameter based on the calculated reliability. (Shimamura, ¶0331: “since the reliability of the calculation result is not secured for the frame range… it is desirable to remove the frame range”).
Regarding claim 3, Shimamura teaches, The dynamic image analysis apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the hardware processor determines that the analysis parameter whose calculated reliability is lower than a predetermined threshold value (Shimamura, ¶0138: “a threshold value indicating whether a frame image can be used for blood flow analysis) needs to be corrected. (Shimamura, ¶0154: “the frame image including movement which becomes a blood flow artifact is excluded from the frame range to be subjected to blood flow analysis”; the correction is interpreted as frame exclusion in accordance with 4th column of fig. 4 in the instant application).
Regarding claim 4, Shimamura teaches, The dynamic image analysis device according to claim 2, wherein the hardware processor calculates the reliability of the analysis parameter based on a number of analysis parameters matching the analysis parameter among a plurality of analysis parameters (Shimamura, ¶0179: “the blood flow scintigraphic examination whose reliability has already been ensured is obtained as an image, there is an advantage that it is easy to verify the correctness of the analysis result”) of the same type as the analysis parameter acquired by a method different from the method for acquiring the analysis parameter. (Shimamura, ¶0380: “obtain information close to the result of the blood flow scintigraphic examination whose reliability has already been ensured”).
Regarding claim 7, Shimamura teaches, The dynamic image analysis apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the hardware processor further notifies a cause of necessity of correction of the analysis parameter (Shimamura, ¶0159: “a warning indicating that there is movement that becomes a blood flow artifact is preferably displayed to warn the user”) and a correction method. (Shimamura, ¶0158: “in a case in which a frame image including movement that becomes a blood flow artifact is excluded from the frame range to be subjected to blood flow analysis”).
Regarding claim 10, Shimamura teaches, A non-transitory computer-readable recording medium including a program for causing a computer used in a dynamic image analysis apparatus to, (Shimamura, Claim 12: “A non-transitory computer readable recording medium storing a program that causes a computer of a dynamic image analysis apparatus to implement”) acquire a dynamic image obtained by radiographing (Shimamura, ¶0057: “analysis apparatus according to this embodiment receives an X-ray dynamic image”) a dynamic state of a subject, (Shimamura, ¶0067: “images indicating the dynamic state of the object”) analyze the dynamic image using one or more types of analysis parameters, generate an analysis result image, (Shimamura, ¶0012: “obtain a blood flow analysis image using a relatively simple method which analyzes a dynamic image”; analysis type is interpreted as blood flow analysis) determine whether the analysis parameter needs to be corrected, (Shimamura, ¶0153: “amount of movement between a predetermined number of frame images (two or more continuous frame images) may be calculated”) and notify the analysis parameter determined to require correction. (Shimamura, ¶0159: “a warning indicating that there is movement that becomes a blood flow artifact is preferably displayed”).
Regarding claim 11, Shimamura teaches, A dynamic image analysis method comprising: acquiring a dynamic image obtained by radiographing (Shimamura, Claim 11: “A dynamic image analysis method comprising: an image acquisition step of acquiring an X-ray dynamic image”) a dynamic state of a subject; (Shimamura, ¶0067: “images indicating the dynamic state of the object”) analyzing the dynamic image using one or more types of analysis parameters; generating an analysis result image; (Shimamura, ¶0012: “obtain a blood flow analysis image using a relatively simple method which analyzes a dynamic image”; analysis type is interpreted as blood flow analysis) determining whether the analysis parameter needs to be corrected; (Shimamura, ¶0153: “amount of movement between a predetermined number of frame images (two or more continuous frame images) may be calculated”) and notifying the analysis parameter determined to require correction. (Shimamura, ¶0159: “a warning indicating that there is movement that becomes a blood flow artifact is preferably displayed”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimamura (US 2020/0034964 A1) in view of Ooida et al. (US 2022/0139564 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Shimamura teaches, The dynamic image analysis apparatus according to claim 2. However, Shimamura does not explicitly teach, wherein the hardware processor, acquires a plurality of analysis parameter candidates serving as candidates for the analysis parameter by a plurality of different methods, and calculates the reliability of each of the analysis parameter candidates based on a number each of the plurality of acquired analysis parameter candidates matches another of the analysis parameter candidates, and determines the analysis parameter candidate having the highest calculated reliability as the analysis parameter.
In an analogous field of endeavor, Ooida teaches, wherein the hardware processor, acquires a plurality of analysis parameter candidates serving as candidates for the analysis parameter by a plurality of different methods, (Ooida, ¶0096: “in a plurality of pieces of the processing, the first acquisition function 155a acquires a plurality of the estimated shapes by estimating the estimated shapes using a plurality of different parameters”) and calculates the reliability of each of the analysis parameter candidates (Ooida, ¶0096: “a parameter at the time when the evaluation value closest to the reference value in the repeated processing or a parameter that is lastly calculated, and advance the process to Step S6”) based on a number each of the plurality of acquired analysis parameter candidates matches another of the analysis parameter candidates, (Ooida, ¶0094: “the calculation function 155b may estimate a parameter with which the calculated evaluation value comes closer to the reference value”) and determines the analysis parameter candidate having the highest calculated reliability as the analysis parameter. (Ooida, ¶0094: “estimate a parameter that is the most effective to cause the evaluation value to be closer to the reference value”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Shimamura using the teachings of Ooida to introduce choosing a parameter from a plurality of parameters. A person skilled in the art would be motivated to combine the known elements as described above and achieve the predictable result of employing the most effective parameter for image analysis. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the analogous arts Shimamura and Ooida to obtain the invention in claim 5.
Regarding claim 6, Shimamura in view of Ooida teaches, The dynamic image analysis apparatus according to claim 5, wherein the hardware processor excludes, from a target used to calculate the reliability, (Ooida, ¶0071: “In a case in which the reliability is equal to or smaller than the threshold… the parameter that is automatically acquired is not used”) the analysis parameter candidate that is not within a predetermined appropriate range among the analysis parameter candidates. (Ooida, ¶0071: “the calculation function 155b may determine whether the reliability is low by determining whether the reliability is equal to or smaller than a threshold”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Shimamura using the additional teachings of Ooida to introduce excluding unreliable parameters. A person skilled in the art would be motivated to combine the known elements as described above and achieve the predictable result of improving the image analysis quality by only using reliable parameters. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the analogous arts Shimamura and Ooida to obtain the invention in claim 6.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimamura (US 2020/0034964 A1) in view of Miyake et al. (US 2017/0025158 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Shimamura teaches, The dynamic image analysis apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the hardware processor, receives, as an input from a user, correction information for correcting the analysis parameter determined to require correction, (Shimamura, ¶0313: “it is desirable that the user operates and sets the upper limit or appropriately corrects a prescribed value”) corrects, based on the input from the user, the analysis parameter determined to require correction, (Shimamura, ¶0307: “An upper limit is provided and a value equal to or greater than 255 is corrected to 255”). However, Shimamura does not explicitly teach, and re-analyzes the dynamic image using the corrected analysis parameter and generates an analysis result image again.
In an analogous field of endeavor, Miyake teaches, and re-analyzes the dynamic image using the corrected analysis parameter (Miyake, ¶0112: “executing the analysis again on the frame image while changing the parameter used in the dynamic analysis”) and generates an analysis result image again. (Miyake, ¶0106: “the dynamic image as a result of the reexecution is displayed on the dynamic image display section”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Shimamura using the teachings of Miyake to introduce re-analyzing a dynamic image with a changed parameter. A person skilled in the art would be motivated to combine the known elements as described above and achieve the predictable result of improving the image analysis function of the apparatus. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the analogous arts Shimamura and Miyake to obtain the invention in claim 8.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimamura (US 2020/0034964 A1) in view of Miyake et al. (US 2017/0025158 A1) and in further view of Huijbers et al. (US 2023/0181117 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Shimamura in view of Miyake teaches, The dynamic image analysis apparatus according to claim 8, wherein the hardware processor calculates reliability of the corrected analysis parameter, (Shimamura, ¶0375: “performance of the filtering process makes it possible to remove noise from the image, to reduce the influence of, for example, movement caused by a body motion, and to perform blood flow analysis with higher reliability”). However, the combination of Shimamura and Miyake does not explicitly teach, and in a case where the reliability of the corrected analysis parameter is smaller than a predetermined threshold value, provides a notification prompting re-imaging.
In an analogous field of endeavor, Huijbers teaches, in a case where the reliability of the corrected analysis parameter is smaller than a predetermined threshold value, provides a notification prompting re-imaging. (Huijbers, ¶0055: “determine whether the medical image should be re-acquired based on the quality control indicator and present a recommendation of whether to re-acquire the medical image to the operator”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Shimamura in view of Miyake using the teachings of Huijbers to introduce re-imaging. A person skilled in the art would be motivated to combine the known elements as described above and achieve the predictable result of improving the image analysis function by recapturing an image to replace a defective image. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the analogous arts Shimamura, Miyake and Huijbers to obtain the invention in claim 9.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MEHRAZUL ISLAM whose telephone number is (571)270-0489. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 8am-5pm.
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, Saini Amandeep can be reached on (571) 272-3382. 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.
/MEHRAZUL ISLAM/Examiner, Art Unit 2662
/AMANDEEP SAINI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2662
Prosecution Insights