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
Application claims priority to foreign application with application number JP2023-062974 dated 04/07/2023. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 9, filed 04/08/2026, with respect to the objection to claims 11 and 20 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection to claims 11 and 20 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 9, filed 04/08/2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-21 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 1-21 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection of claim(s) 1 and 21 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 6, 13-15, 17-18, and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gillies et al. (US 20170071496 A1, hereinafter “Gillies”) in view of Zhang et al. (US 20220292666 A1, hereinafter "Zhang") and Miyakoshi et al. (US 20180068168 A1; hereinafter "Miyakoshi").
Regarding claim 1, Gillies teaches: An image processing apparatus, comprising: processing circuitry configured to
obtain a plurality of Magnetic Resonance (MR) images of mutually-different types ([0009] “For example, the radiological images can be obtained by a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) sequence. Examples of suitable MRI sequences include longitudinal relaxation time (T1)-weighted images (e.g., pre-contrast or post-contrast; with or without fat suppression), transverse relaxation time (T2)-weighted images, T2*-weighted gradient-echo images, fluid attenuated inversion recovery (FLAIR), Short Tau Inversion Recovery (STIR), perfusion imaging, Arterial Spin Labeling (ASL), diffusion tensor imaging (DTI), and Apparent Diffusion Coefficient of water (ADC) maps.”;
[0092] “In clinical and pre-clinical STS, distinct intratumoral sub-regions across multiple histological types have been quantitatively delineated by combining T1, contrast-enhanced T1, and T2 STIR MR images.”);
generate a scatter diagram in which a first value group related to a first tissue and a second value group related to a second tissue different from the first tissue are arranged in a region having a plurality of dimensional axes, the first value group including a plurality of pixel values or values derived from the plurality of pixel values corresponding to the first tissue in each of the plurality of MR images, the second value group including a plurality of pixel values or values derived from the plurality of pixel values corresponding to the second tissue in each of the plurality of MR images (fig. 11, [0025] “FIG. 11. Clinical STS Images: Each pixel value in the tumor is plotted on axes representing each sequence (T1, STIR/T2, post contrast). Using Fuzzy c-means clustering technique, data points are clustered. Each cluster is assigned a color and then presented in 2D space on the tumor mask as a color segmentation map.”;
[0114] “As shown in FIG. 11, the orthogonal data can be combined using Fuzzy C-means and Otsu segmentation clustering to identify spatially explicit habitats in STS. This has been performed in 5 different histological subtypes, all of whom show the same collection of habitats, albeit in different proportions.”;
Different clusters/habitats can be considered to correspond to the claimed first and second value groups related to a first and second tissue respectively.); and
cause a display to display the scatter diagram (fig. 11 display).
Gillies also teaches the relation of a first value group related to a first tissue and a second value group related to a second tissue different from the first tissue and serving as a reference ([0005] “Disclosed is a radiological method for predicting the severity of a tumor in a subject that involves spatially superimposing two or more radiological images of the tumor sufficient to define regional habitat variations in two or more ecological dynamics in the tumor, and comparing the habitat variations to one or more controls to predict the severity of the tumor.”, where the tumor is the target tissue and the control(s) are the reference; fig. 14 shows value groups related to each tissue type displayed together on a graph).
Gillies does not explicitly teach the use of a scatter diagram to display the value group corresponding to the reference tissue together with the value group corresponding to the non-reference (experimental) tissue; however, since Gillies does teach the use of a scatter diagram to display multiple tissue types together, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine both previously discussed embodiments of Gillies to do this.
Gillies does not explicitly teach: change a shape of the scatter diagram, or cause a display to display the scatter diagram of which the shape has been changed.
Zhang teaches: change a shape of the scatter diagram ([0054] “…adjusting the vertical and horizontal axis scale across scatter plots in the image to, for example, present/magnify certain image features; and adding, to each scatter plot, a comparative scatterplot as a reference/baseline plot, thereby generating a multi-layer image.”), and cause a display to display the scatter diagram of which the shape has been changed (fig. 7 display).
Gillies and Zhang are analogous to the claimed invention because Gillies is in the same field of MR imaging and Zhang pertains to the same problem of graphically representing data using a scatter plot. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Gillies with the teachings of Zhang to be able to adjust the axes/displayed region of a scatter plot. The motivation would have been to “present/magnify certain image features” (Zhang [0054]).
The combination of Gillies in view of Zhang does not explicitly teach: change a shape of the scatter diagram so that either one of the values included in the second value group or a location central to the second value group is always displayed in a same position.
Miyakoshi teaches: change a shape of the scatter diagram so that either one of the values included in the second value group or a location central to the second value group is always displayed in a same position ([0088] teaches setting a reference value to a consistent location at coordinates (0,0) in order to compare all other values to that location: “The first relationship screen A4 in FIG. 9 is a distribution diagram (e.g., scatter diagram) showing the similarity degree of each learning sample with respect to a reference value by a distance from an origin O in a two dimensional space with two items (for example, color and shape) relating to the similarity degree determination as variables. The reference value for displaying the similarity degree of each learning sample as the distance is set on the origin O. In the present embodiment, the feature value (collation or reference data) of the learning target article is set as the reference value. In this case, the closer the distance is to the origin O, the higher the similarity degree with the feature value becomes.”).
Miyakoshi is analogous to the claimed invention because it pertains to the same problem of graphically representing data using a scatter plot. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Gillies in view of Zhang with the teachings of Miyakoshi to adjust the axes of a scatter plot based on a predetermined reference value in order to more easily visualize a comparison between data points.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Gillies in view of Zhang and Miyakoshi teaches: The image processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to set the second tissue in accordance with a purpose of an observation (Gillies [0005] “Disclosed is a radiological method for predicting the severity of a tumor in a subject that involves spatially superimposing two or more radiological images of the tumor sufficient to define regional habitat variations in two or more ecological dynamics in the tumor, and comparing the habitat variations to one or more controls to predict the severity of the tumor.”; controls are set for the purpose of observing and diagnosing a tumor).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Gillies in view of Zhang and Miyakoshi teaches: The image processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to change the shape of the scatter diagram, by adjusting the axes of the scatter diagram (Zhang [0054] “…adjusting the vertical and horizontal axis scale across scatter plots in the image to, for example, present/magnify certain image features…”) so that the either one of the values included in the second value group or the location central to the second value group is always displayed in the same position (Miyakoshi [0088] “The first relationship screen A4 in FIG. 9 is a distribution diagram (e.g., scatter diagram) showing the similarity degree of each learning sample with respect to a reference value by a distance from an origin O in a two dimensional space with two items (for example, color and shape) relating to the similarity degree determination as variables. The reference value for displaying the similarity degree of each learning sample as the distance is set on the origin O.”).
The motivation for combining Gillies with the teachings of Zhang and Miyakoshi would have been similar to the motivation described for claim 1.
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Gillies in view of Zhang and Miyakoshi teaches: The image processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to divide the scatter diagram into a plurality of zones (Gillies [0025] “FIG. 11. Clinical STS Images: Each pixel value in the tumor is plotted on axes representing each sequence (T1, STIR/T2, post contrast). Using Fuzzy c-means clustering technique, data points are clustered.”), and assign mutually-different pieces of identification information to the zones (Gillies [0025] “Each cluster is assigned a color…”), and cause the display to further display an MR image, of the plurality of MR images, on which the pieces of identification information assigned to the zones are superimposed in such a manner that, with respect to each of the zones, a position in the MR image corresponding to a value group displayed in the scatter diagram is identifiable (Gillies [0025] “Each cluster is assigned a color and then presented in 2D space on the tumor mask as a color segmentation map.”; fig. 11 shows MR image displayed with colored tissue regions corresponding to clusters in the scatter plot).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Gillies in view of Zhang and Miyakoshi teaches: The image processing apparatus according to claim 13, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to generate a plurality of scatter diagrams, and cause the display to display the scatter diagrams in one of the following manners: being arranged side by side (Zhang fig. 18, a plurality of scatter diagrams are generated and displayed side by side; [0070] “UI 1825 may present displays of data scatter plots as seen at 1830 in the UI to facilitate the labeling of anomalies.”); being switched from one to another (Zhang [0060] “In some regards, a modularized image generation process as disclosed herein by way of example facilitates, adding and modifying image layouts (e.g., add more subplots, quickly test new plot layouts, etc.)”); and being superimposed on one another (Zhang fig. 5A and 5B show examples of two scatter plots superimposed on each other; [0054] “…adding, to each scatter plot, a comparative scatterplot as a reference/baseline plot, thereby generating a multi-layer image.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Gillies in view of Zhang and Miyakoshi with the additional teachings of Zhang to display multiple scatter plots in the specified configurations. The motivation would have been to provide more information to a user and allow them to compare data more easily.
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Gillies in view of Zhang and Miyakoshi teaches: The image processing apparatus according to claim 13, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to cause the MR image to be displayed in such a manner that a position corresponding to the first value group displayed in the scatter diagram is identifiable (Gillies [0025] “Each cluster is assigned a color and then presented in 2D space on the tumor mask as a color segmentation map.”; fig. 11 shows MR image displayed with colored tissue regions corresponding to clusters in the scatter plot).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Gillies in view of Zhang and Miyakoshi teaches: The image processing apparatus according to claim 13, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to divide the scatter diagram into the plurality of zones in accordance with a tendency of a distribution of the values based on the pixel values (Gillies [0025] “FIG. 11. Clinical STS Images: Each pixel value in the tumor is plotted on axes representing each sequence (T1, STIR/T2, post contrast). Using Fuzzy c-means clustering technique, data points are clustered.”).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Gillies in view of Zhang and Miyakoshi teaches: The image processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to display the scatter diagram in such a manner that, with respect to each of a plurality of first tissues, a first value group related to the first tissue is identifiable (Gillies [0025] “Using Fuzzy c-means clustering technique, data points are clustered. Each cluster is assigned a color…”).
Regarding claim 21, it is rejected using the same references, rationale, and motivation to combine as claim 1 because its limitations substantially correspond to the limitations of claim 1, with the additional limitation of: A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising a plurality of computer-executable instructions (Zhang [0049] “For example, a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium may store thereon instructions that when executed by a machine result in performance according to any of the embodiments described herein.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Gillies in view of Zhang and Miyakoshi with the additional teachings of Zhang to use standard means of storing software in order to enable standard conveniences such as editing, loading, saving, etc.
Claim(s) 2, 4, 12, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gillies (US 20170071496 A1) in view of Zhang (US 20220292666 A1) and Miyakoshi (US 20180068168 A1) as applied to claims 1, 3, and 13 above, and further in view of Sekiya et al. (US 20200082579 A1, hereinafter "Sekiya").
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Gillies in view of Zhang and Miyakoshi teaches: The image processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to set a position in the scatter diagram for displaying the either one of the values included in the second value group or the location central to the second value group (Miyakoshi [0088] teaches setting a reference value to a consistent location at coordinates (0,0); see claim 1 for full citation), and change the shape of the scatter diagram based on the second tissue and the set position (Zhang and Miyakoshi; see claim 1).
The combination of Gillies in view of Zhang and Miyakoshi does not explicitly teach: wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to set the second tissue.
Sekiya teaches: wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to set the second tissue ([0069] “To realize the process as described above, the analysis function 444 first identifies, in the scatter diagram, an approximate position of a target tissue for which the contrast is to be enhanced. For example, the analysis function 444 receives designation operation of designating a region of interest indicating a position of the target tissue via the input interface 43, and identifies an approximate position of the target tissue on the scatter diagram.”).
Sekiya is analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of medical imaging and pertains to the same problem of generating a scatter plot to analyze medical images. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Gillies in view of Zhang and Miyakoshi with the teachings of Sekiya to allow a user to select the specific target in order to give them more control over the procedure.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Gillies in view of Zhang and Miyakoshi teaches: The image processing apparatus according to claim 3, but does not explicitly teach: wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to set, as the second tissue, each of a plurality of tissues having mutually-different tissue characteristics.
Sekiya teaches: wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to set, as the second tissue, each of a plurality of tissues having mutually-different tissue characteristics ([0072] “Then, if a plurality of target tissues for which contrast is to be enhanced is present, as illustrated in FIG. 4 for example…”; fig. 4 shows multiple regions of interest associated with different tissue types, each with different measured characteristics).
Sekiya is analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of medical imaging and pertains to the same problem of generating a scatter plot to analyze medical images. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Gillies in view of Zhang and Miyakoshi with the teachings of Sekiya to use multiple target tissues with a variety of properties. The motivation would have been to provide a broader basis for comparison with other tissues.
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Gillies in view of Zhang and Miyakoshi teaches: The image processing apparatus according to claim 1, but does not explicitly teach: wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to save an adjustment value used at a time of generating the scatter diagram in a storage apparatus, and, in response to a request from an operator, read the adjustment value saved in the storage apparatus to re-generate the scatter diagram by using the read adjustment value, and cause the display to display the re-generated scatter diagram.
Sekiya teaches: wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to save an adjustment value used at a time of generating the scatter diagram in a storage apparatus ([0076] “Therefore, the analysis function 444 stores, in the memory 41, the position and the shape of the region of interest that is set on the scatter diagram by the operator…”), and, in response to a request from an operator, read the adjustment value saved in the storage apparatus to re-generate the scatter diagram by using the read adjustment value, and cause the display to display the re-generated scatter diagram ([0076] “…and, in a subsequent process of setting a region of interest, the analysis function 444 identifies, on the scatter diagram, the position of the region of interest stored in the memory 41 as an approximate position of the target tissue for which the contrast is to be enhanced”).
Sekiya is analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of medical imaging and pertains to the same problem of generating a scatter plot to analyze medical images. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Gillies in view of Zhang and Miyakoshi with the teachings of Sekiya to save parameters input by a user when modifying the scatter diagram and automatically apply them when generating a new diagram. The motivation would have been “to reduce time and effort for the operator to set the region of interest” (Sekiya [0076]).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Gillies in view of Zhang and Miyakoshi teaches: The image processing apparatus according to claim 13, but does not explicitly teach: wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to change a quantity of the zones in an entire or partial range of the scatter diagram.
Sekiya teaches: wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to change a quantity of the zones in an entire or partial range of the scatter diagram ([0093] “Here, if the scatter diagram is displayed side by side, the display control function 445 is able to further display a GUI for receiving operation of changing the regions of interest set in the scatter diagram. That is, the operator is able to arbitrarily change the regions of interest in the scatter diagram or the weight of each of the regions of interest while referring to the analysis image.”; the operator is able to either select a single region of interest ([0073]) or a plurality of regions of interest ([0074]); the combination of these suggesting that the operator is able to modify the number of selected regions of interest).
Sekiya is analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of medical imaging and pertains to the same problem of generating a scatter plot to analyze medical images. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Gillies in view of Zhang and Miyakoshi with the teachings of Sekiya to allow a user to change the number of regions being examined. The motivation would have been to improve the user experience by allowing a user to make changes to their analysis whenever they are needed.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gillies (US 20170071496 A1) in view of Zhang (US 20220292666 A1) and Miyakoshi (US 20180068168 A1) as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Deng et al. ("Quantitative imaging of the clearance systems in the eye and the brain". Quantitative Imaging in Medicine and Surgery, Vol. 10, no. 1 (Jan 2020), pp. 1-14. https://doi.org/10.21037/qims.2019.11.18; hereinafter "Deng").
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Gillies in view of Zhang and Miyakoshi teaches: The image processing apparatus according to claim 4, but does not explicitly teach: wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to set, as the second tissue, each of cerebrospinal fluid in a lateral cerebral ventricle, an eyeball, and a thalamus.
Deng teaches: wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to set, as the second tissue, each of cerebrospinal fluid in a lateral cerebral ventricle, an eyeball, and a thalamus (pg. 4 col. 1 describes how MRI is useful for imaging cerebrospinal fluid within the brain and eye; pg. 5 table 1 entry “Contrast-enhanced MRI” specifically lists the lateral ventricles and thalamus under “Tissues and regions of interest”).
Deng is analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of MR imaging. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Gillies in view of Zhang and Miyakoshi with the teachings of Deng to image cerebrospinal fluid in a lateral cerebral ventricle, eyeball, and thalamus and use them as reference targets. The motivation would have been to monitor the clearance systems in the brain in order to investigate diseases such as multiple sclerosis, Alzheimer’s, and Parkinson’s, as taught by Deng (pg. 1 Introduction).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gillies (US 20170071496 A1) in view of Zhang (US 20220292666 A1) and Miyakoshi (US 20180068168 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Spencer (US 6356646 B1).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Gillies in view of Zhang and Miyakoshi teaches: The image processing apparatus according to claim 1, but does not explicitly teach: wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to generate a ternary graph having the plurality of dimensional axes, as the scatter diagram.
Spencer teaches: wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to generate a ternary graph having the plurality of dimensional axes, as the scatter diagram (figs. 1-4, abstract “The successful application relies on the use of images from optimal bands; those bands include a near-infrared, mid-infrared, and visible band. The percentages of each of the three bands are plotted on a ternary diagram…”).
Spencer is analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of image analysis and pertains to the same problem of graphically representing data. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Gillies in view of Zhang and Miyakoshi with the teachings of Spencer to use a ternary graph to display MR image data. The motivation would have been to “assist the analyst” (Spencer col. 20 line 20) in cases where three MR images need to be analyzed and visualized together.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gillies (US 20170071496 A1) in view of Zhang (US 20220292666 A1) and Miyakoshi (US 20180068168 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Adusumilli et al. (US 20040041838 A1, hereinafter "Adusumilli").
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Gillies in view of Zhang and Miyakoshi teaches: The image processing apparatus according to claim 1, but does not explicitly teach: wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to save the scatter diagram in a storage apparatus, and, in response to a request from an operator, read the scatter diagram saved in the storage apparatus, and cause the display to display the scatter diagram.
Adusumilli teaches: wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to save the scatter diagram in a storage apparatus, and, in response to a request from an operator, read the scatter diagram saved in the storage apparatus, and cause the display to display the scatter diagram ([0038] “A "saved graph" can indicate a graph that has been created and named and which can be loaded again at a future time. A saved graph can be created, for example by: copying a pre-defined graph, modifying and saving a pre-defined graph, creating a new graph or other method.”; [0039] “A user can thereby load a pre-defined or saved graph…”).
Adusumilli is analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of generating scatter diagrams as graphical representations of data. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Gillies in view of Zhang and Miyakoshi with the teachings of Adusumilli to allow a user to save their work and load it at a future time. The motivation would have been user convenience; this is a standard software feature.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gillies (US 20170071496 A1) in view of Zhang (US 20220292666 A1) and Miyakoshi (US 20180068168 A1) as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Adobe ("Copy and arrange layers in Photoshop Elements", retrieved from Wayback Machine 03/23/2023).
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Gillies in view of Zhang and Miyakoshi teaches: The image processing apparatus according to claim 18, but does not explicitly teach: wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to receive, from the operator, an operation to set a priority ranking for displaying the plurality of first tissues, and, when positions of the first value groups respectively related to the plurality of first tissues overlap with one another in the scatter diagram, arrange a first value group related to a first tissue in a higher priority rank to be displayed closer to a viewer than first value groups related to other first tissues.
Adobe teaches: wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to receive, from the operator, an operation to set a priority ranking for displaying the plurality of first tissues (first image, user may drag layers up and down to change the stacking order), and, when positions of the first value groups respectively related to the plurality of first tissues overlap with one another in the scatter diagram, arrange a first value group related to a first tissue in a higher priority rank to be displayed closer to a viewer than first value groups related to other first tissues (second image, “Bamboo” layer is now displayed in front of overlapping “Borders” layer after the user changes the stacking order).
Adobe is analogous to the claimed invention because it pertains to the same problem of graphical editing operations, and the features it is relied upon to teach are standard in graphical editing software and therefore well known in the art. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Gillies in view of Sekiya with the teachings of Adobe to allow a user to change a ranking of displayed items to bring them closer or further from the foreground. The motivation would have been to allow a user to select more important value groups to be displayed in their entirety instead of being obstructed by other value groups.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8, 9, and 10 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 8, the combination of Gillies in view of Zhang and Miyakoshi and further in view of Spencer teaches: The image processing apparatus according to claim 7, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to change the shape of the ternary graph, by adjusting display ranges of the axes of the ternary graph (Zhang, see claim 1) so as to fit the position of the either one of the values included in the second value group or the location central to the second value group (Miyakoshi, see claim 1). Spencer additionally teaches that the ternary graph is shaped like an equilateral triangle (col. 3 lines 16-17 “(16) A ternary diagram (a.k.a. triangular plot) is a graphical plot based on the use of an equilateral triangle…”).
However, the known prior art does not teach or render obvious the limitation: and subsequently changing a shape of the post-adjustment ternary graph into an equilateral triangle, when the limitation is considered in the context of the claim as a whole.
Regarding claims 9 and 10, the same rationale applies because they are dependent on claim 8.
References Cited
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Holst et al. (US 20240312032 A1) teaches changing the shape of a graph to match a set of reference imaging metadata ([0074]).
Hisano (US 20190335146 A1) teaches adjusting the axes of two superimposed graphs so that their start and end points are overlaid at constant, predetermined positions.
Lee et al. (KR 20220043771 A, hereinafter “Lee”) teaches a method of image analysis in which two value groups are generated based on two different devices which detect the locations of defects in a substrate (one may be considered a target and the other a reference). The relative differences in coordinates between the two methods is calculated, and the differences are plotted on a scatter diagram. The difference between the two devices’ outputs are represented by the offset between the plotted points and the origin; therefore, the origin may be considered “a specific target serving as a reference” which is always displayed in a same position (figs. 1, 12, and 13; see included translations).
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN STATZ whose telephone number is (571)272-6654. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 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, Tammy Goddard can be reached at (571)272-7773. 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.
/BENJAMIN TOM STATZ/Examiner, Art Unit 2611
/TAMMY PAIGE GODDARD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2611
Prosecution Insights