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 .
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 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.
DETAILED ACTION
Priority
This application claims priority to JP2023-063242, filed on April 10, 2023.
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 12 and 13 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. In particular, claim 12 recites “an initial-region acquisition unit configured to acquire a result of estimating, based on the captured image, an initial region of the predetermined region in the captured image, and wherein, in a case where determination is made by the determination unit that the estimation of the predetermined region has failed, the acquisition unit acquires the result of the estimation of the initial region acquired by the initial-region acquisition unit as the result of the estimation of the predetermined region. “
The portion of the claim that recites “as a result of the estimating” causes an issue as the result of the estimating occurs after the acquisition of the image in claim 1 whereas the recited step is indicated to occur prior to the acquisition of the image. The wherein clause is also indefinite as it appears to be circular and contradictory. It acquires the result of the estimate of the initial region as a result of the estimation, but also that the result has failed so there is no result. There does not appear to be a way to properly understand this claim and therefore the examiner will not examine this claim for that reason. Claim 13 inherits the deficiencies of claim 12 and is unexaminable for the same reasons.
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 of this title, 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.
Claims 1, 4-11, 14-17 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as unpatentable over US 2020/0410649 Kearney et al. (hereafter Kearney) in view of US 2022/0366546, Lin et al. (hereafter Lin)
1. An image processing apparatus comprising:
a memory storing a program; and one or more processors which, by executing the program, function as: (Kearney ¶343-344 processors/memory)
an image acquisition unit configured to acquire an object image obtained by capturing an image of an object; (Kearney ¶55 obtains an image of a patient’s mouth)
an invalid-region acquisition unit configured to acquire information related to an invalid region, which is a region that is outside an image capturing range or where the object is not present, in the object image; (Kearney ¶189-194 describes a system for filling in missing data (missing parts) in images)
an acquisition unit configured to acquire a result of estimating a predetermined region based on the object image; and (Kearney ¶194 fills in the missing information)
Kearney does not disclose
a determination unit configured to determine, by using the information related to the invalid region, whether or not an estimation of the predetermined region is successful.
However Lin ¶28-29 discloses using a confidence analysis feedback system to determine high confidence pixels to fill in while leaving others alone (failure) until the area is filled in. It would have been obvious to modify the system of Kearney to utilize a feedback system for the purposes of improving the quality of the final result as taught by Lin (¶24)
Claims 16-17 are rejected similarly.
4. The image processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the acquisition unit can acquire results of the estimation of the predetermined region using two or more types of estimation methods and acquires, in a case where determination is made by the determination unit that the estimation of the predetermined region by using a first estimation method has failed, the result of the estimation of the predetermined region by using a second estimation method different from the first estimation method. (Lin ¶28-29 discloses two types of estimation methods (fine and coarse) and uses the confident in an iterative approach to create a higher quality final result)
5. The image processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the acquisition unit acquires a result of the estimation of the predetermined region estimated by using a learning model trained to learn a relationship between the object image and the predetermined region. (Kearney ¶71 machine learning model)
6. The image processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the object image is a three-dimensional image, and wherein the invalid region is a three-dimensional region. (Kearney ¶100 3D images)
7. The image processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the image acquisition unit acquires the object image by cutting, out of a captured image obtained by capturing the image of the object, a region where the object is depicted, and wherein the invalid-region acquisition unit acquires the information related to the invalid region based on the captured image. (Kearney ¶191-194 masking)
8. The image processing apparatus according to claim 7, wherein the captured image is any of an ultrasonic image obtained by an ultrasonic diagnostic apparatus, an X-ray CT image obtained by an X-ray CT (Computed Tomographic) apparatus, and an MRI image obtained by an MRI (Magnetic Resonance Imaging) apparatus. (Kearney ¶55 Xray, CT, MRI)
9. The image processing apparatus according to claim 7, wherein the captured image is a three-dimensional image, and the object image is a two-dimensional cross-sectional image cut out of the captured image. (Kearney ¶103-104 3d-2d as a function of the system; see also ¶104 describing how a 2d image interprets a 3d space)
10. The image processing apparatus according to claim 9, wherein the image acquisition unit acquires the two-dimensional cross-sectional image by using a learning model trained by inputting thereto the three-dimensional image so as to output parameters specifying a position and an orientation of the two-dimensional cross-sectional image in the three-dimensional image. (Kearney ¶103-104 2d-3d as a function of the system)
11. The image processing apparatus according to claim 9, wherein the image acquisition unit acquires the two-dimensional cross-sectional image by using an image obtained by reducing a resolution of the three-dimensional image. (Kearney ¶103-104 3d-2d as a function of the system; note 2d image like this would be a cross section of a 3d image and further the resolution would have been reduced from a 3d (a x b x c) image to a (a x b) image)
14. The image processing apparatus according to claim 1, further comprising: a display that displays the result of the estimation of the predetermined region and the result of the determination by the determination unit. (Kearney ¶194 outputs a reconstructed image)
15. The image processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein, in a case where determination is made by the determination unit that the estimation of the predetermined region is a failure, the acquisition unit acquires, as the result of the estimation, the predetermined region corrected based on an instruction from a user.
Although Lin and Kearney do not disclose wherein, in a case where determination is made by the determination unit that the estimation of the predetermined region is a failure, the acquisition unit acquires, as the result of the estimation, the predetermined region corrected based on an instruction from a user, it would have been obvious to obtain a correction from a user when the computer is unable to perform the desired estimation because when a computer is unable to perform its desired function, intervention from a user to provide the correction to the computer would be necessary in order to complete the task. Such a step would be a natural result of turning to the user to fix issues when a computer is unable to provide the proper output.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2 and 3 recite allowable subject matter. In particular, claims 2 and 3 are allowable because the two failure modes claimed in claims 2 and 3 do not allow filling in the missing information as compared to a system like Kearney and Lin or other inpainting systems which fill in the missing information to the best of the ability of the system and do not contemplate failure modes. While there is an argument to be made that an inpainting system could incorporate failure modes, to this examiner, at least, the purpose of such inpainting systems is to fill in the area as best as it can, whether it turns out to be good or bad, and so such failure modes would be contrary to the purpose of such a system and therefore would not be correctly combinable with the cited art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ming Shui whose telephone number is (303)297-4247. The examiner can normally be reached on 7-5 Pacific Time, M-Th.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Greg Morse can be reached on 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 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.
/Ming Shui/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2663
Prosecution Insights