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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The IDS dated 04/03/2024 has been considered and placed in the application file. A signed copy of the PTO-1449 is included in this correspondence.
Claim Objections
Claims 11 and 20 objected to because of the following informalities: in claim 11 "cause" is misspelled as "couse"; in claim 20 the sentence is not capitalized. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-21 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1 and 21 refer to a “target tissue” and a “specific target serving as a reference.” The claim language is unclear as to whether these two targets must be distinct, or if they may refer to the same tissue.
Claims 1 and 21 refer to “values” and “value groups”. The claim language surrounding these is vague; it is unclear how a value is derived from a pixel value of an MR image, or how a value group is related to, or derived from, individual values.
Claims 1 and 21 refer to value groups which are “always displayed in the same position”. It is unclear from the claim language whether each value within a value group must be displayed in the same position, or if the value groups are considered as a whole. Furthermore, figure 4 shows three possible positions for a landmark value group; the claim language is unclear, in an instance where there are multiple standardized landmark positions, as to whether a value group corresponding to one particular reference target may be displayed in any one of the standardized positions, or if it must consistently be displayed in the same one of those positions. Furthermore, the claim language, the drawings, and the specification are all unclear as to whether there can be multiple standardized landmark positions in an embodiment in which the scatter diagram is not a ternary diagram, as permitted by claims 1 and 21.
Claims 2-20 are rejected due to their dependence on the rejected independent claim 1, and because they fail to clarify the issues discussed above.
For purposes of examination, the claims have been interpreted based on the specification and drawings; however, these interpretations are not considered to be included in the claim language.
The claims are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification.
The following terms in the claims have been given the following interpretations in light of the specification:
“Target tissue” and “specific target” (claims 1 and 21): pg. 13 “After that, the display controlling function 152 sets the landmarks, which are the specific tissues each serving as a reference (step S107). For example, within the MR image 211 displayed in the image display region 210, the display controlling function 152 may receive, from the operator, an operation to designate three regions of interest different from the regions of interest 212 in the target region, and may further set three landmarks on the basis of the regions of interest designated by the operator.” Thus, the “specific target” is a reference tissue to which values for other tissues are compared. Fig. 4 shows that the landmarks 223 are positioned at each corner of the ternary graph; figs. 3 and 7 indicate that the value groups related to the target tissues (222 for fig. 3) are not positioned at the corners. Therefore, the specification and drawings suggest that the target tissue and specific targets (landmarks) are separate tissues; however, it is not explicit as to whether they must be separate tissues. For purposes of examination, they are treated as though they are separate.
“Value” and “value group” (claims 1 and 21): pg. 12 “For example, as illustrated in FIG. 3, the display controlling function 152 generates the ternary graph 221 in which the values based on the pixel values of the three MR images to be analyzed are arranged in a region having three-dimensional axes X, Y, and Z and which displays a value group 222 related to the target tissue. The display controlling function 152 further displays the generated ternary graph 221 in the scatter diagram display region 220 on the operation screen 200. In this situation, the values based on the pixel values may be the pixel values themselves obtained by the obtaining function 151 or may be values obtained by processing the pixel values by performing normalization or the like.” The specification does not require a particular type of processing; therefore, a “value” is a pixel value of an MR image, or any other value somehow derived from a pixel value of an MR image. A “value group” is a plurality of “values” which are all derived from pixels of an MR image which all correspond to the same tissue.
“A value group… is always displayed in a same position” (claims 1 and 21): pg. 14 “More specifically, the display controlling function 152 sets the positions in the ternary graph 221 for displaying the value groups 223 related to the landmarks, by setting the coordinates of the vertices of the ternary graph 221 in such a manner that the positions of the vertices of the ternary graph 221 match the positions of the value groups 223 respectively related to the three landmarks that were set. In this situation, the position matched with each of the vertices of the ternary graph 221 may be the position of a single point representing each of the value groups 223 related to the corresponding landmark or may be the position of the center of gravity of the distribution of the group.” Thus, a value group being displayed in “a same position” means that either one of the points comprising the value group or a location central to the value group must be displayed in a same position.
These definitions are used for purposes of searching for prior art, but cannot be incorporated into the claims. Should applicant wish different definitions, applicant should point to the portions of the specification that clearly show a different definition.
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, 4, 12, 13, 15-18, 20, 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 Sekiya et al. (US 20200082579 A1, hereinafter "Sekiya").
Regarding claim 1, Gillies et al. (US 20170071496 A1, hereinafter “Gillies”) teaches: An image processing apparatus, comprising: processing circuitry configured to
obtain pixel values of at least three 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.”); and
generate a scatter diagram in which values based on the pixel values are arranged in a region having at least three-dimensional axes, and then cause a display to display the scatter diagram (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.”).
Gillies also teaches the display of a value group related to a target tissue and a value group related to a specific target 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 the display of value groups related to each).
Gillies does not explicitly teach: generate a scatter diagram which displays a value group related to a target tissue in such a manner that a value group related to a specific target serving as a reference is always displayed in a same position.
Sekiya et al. (US 20200082579 A1, hereinafter “Sekiya”) teaches a method of medical imaging which includes generating a scatter diagram which displays a value group related to a target tissue (fig. 4, groups R11-R51 corresponding to tissues R111-R511; see [0069] to [0072]) in such a manner that a value group related to a specific target serving as a reference is always displayed in a same position ([0075] “Therefore, because the mixture ratio of the reference materials in the same target tissue does not change not only in a single subject, but also between different subjects, it is highly likely that the approximate position of the target tissue on the scatter diagram is an identical position.”). Sekiya does not explicitly teach that the target is always displayed in a same position; however, “highly likely” and “always” can be considered as similar and overlapping ranges according to MPEP 2144.05, indicating a prima facie case of obviousness.
Sekiya and Gillies are analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of medical imaging and pertain to the same issue 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 with the teachings of Sekiya to enable the scatter plot to clearly separate out groups of points corresponding to a specific tissue region and given standardized positions. The motivation would have been to more clearly provide information to a user.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Gillies in view of Sekiya teaches: The image processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to set the specific target 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 4, the combination of Gillies in view of Sekiya teaches: The image processing apparatus according to claim 3, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to set, as the specific target, each of a plurality of targets having mutually-different tissue characteristics (Sekiya [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 and Gillies are analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of medical imaging and pertain to the same issue 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 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 Sekiya teaches: The image processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to save an adjustment value used at the time of generating the scatter diagram in a storage apparatus (Sekiya [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 (Sekiya [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 and Gillies are analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of medical imaging and pertain to the same issue 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 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 13, the combination of Gillies in view of Sekiya 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 the MR image 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 15, the combination of Gillies in view of Sekiya 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 value group related to the target tissue 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 16, the combination of Gillies in view of Sekiya teaches: The image processing apparatus according to claim 13, 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 [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 and Gillies are analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of medical imaging and pertain to the same issue 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 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.
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Gillies in view of Sekiya 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 Sekiya 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 target tissues, a value group related to the target tissue is identifiable (Gillies [0025] “Using Fuzzy c-means clustering technique, data points are clustered. Each cluster is assigned a color…”).
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Gillies in view of Sekiya teaches: the image processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the specific target is a specific tissue (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.”, suggesting that the control (or specific target) must be a specific tissue in order to properly compare to tumor tissue).
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 (Sekiya [0039] “The memory 41 is realized by, for example, a semiconductor memory element, such as a random access memory (RAM) or a flash memory, a hard disk, an optical disk, or the like.”) comprising a plurality of computer-executable instructions (Sekiya [0044] “In the X-ray CT apparatus 1 illustrated in FIG. 2, each of the processing functions is stored in the memory 41 in the form of a program that can be executed by a computer.”).
Sekiya and Gillies are analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of medical imaging and pertain to the same issue 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 with the teachings of Sekiya to use standard means of storing software in order to enable standard conveniences such as editing, loading, saving, etc.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gillies (US 20170071496 A1) in view of Sekiya (US 20200082579 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tamatsukuri et al. (US 20210111055 A1, hereinafter "Tamatsukuri").
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Gillies in view of Sekiya teaches: The image processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to set the specific target (Sekiya [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 and Gillies are analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of medical imaging and pertain to the same issue 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 with the teachings of Sekiya to allow a user to select the specific target in order to give them more control over the procedure.
The combination of Gillies in view of Sekiya does not explicitly teach: wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to set a position in the scatter diagram for displaying the value group related to the specific target, and generate the scatter diagram on a basis of the specific target and the position being set.
Tamatsukuri teaches wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to set a position in the scatter diagram for displaying the value group related to the specific target ([0084] “…the detected values may be displayed, without being sorted in ascending order, as a scatter plot in which the horizontal axis represents the position of the reference tooth G1”; the position of the reference (or “specific target”) is set at the horizontal axis, and all other points are plotted relative to the reference), and generate the scatter diagram on a basis of the specific target and the position being set (fig. 13; see [0084] for additional explanation). Though Tamatsukuri does not explicitly teach a scatter diagram for MR image data, one of ordinary skill in the art should have been able to apply the teachings of Tamatsukuri to any implementation of a scatter diagram.
Tamatsukuri and the combination of Gillies in view of Sekiya are analogous to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same issue of generating a scatter plot to analyze 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 Sekiya with the teachings of Tamatsukuri to allow a user to specify a location for the target serving as a reference. The motivation would have been as a form of calibration; a user may more easily visualize the difference to other value groups when the reference is in a specified position such as an axis.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gillies (US 20170071496 A1) in view of Sekiya (US 20200082579 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 Sekiya 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 specific target, 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 specific target, 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 and the combination of Gillies in view of Sekiya are analogous to the claimed invention because they are 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 Sekiya 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) 6 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gillies (US 20170071496 A1) in view of Sekiya (US 20200082579 A1) as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Zhang et al. (US 20220292666 A1, hereinafter "Zhang").
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Gillies in view of Sekiya teaches: The image processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to generate the scatter diagram displaying the value group related to the target tissue in such a manner that the value group related to the specific target is always displayed in the same position (see claim 1). Additionally, Gillies teaches adjusting the range of MR imaging data ([0060] “To enable consistent evaluations for all cases, the obtained MRI imaging data were processed by standardizing the intensity scales [Shah M, et al. (2011). Med Image Anal 15, 267-282]. Linear normalization on each volume was employed. The voxels of each volume of the tumor region were independently normalized into the scale from 0 to 1. Thus, the normalization captured the local tumor variations of specific patients in the standard range.”)
The combination of Gillies in view of Sekiya does not explicitly teach: by adjusting the axes of the scatter diagram so that the value group related to the specific target is always displayed in the same position.
Zhang teaches adjusting the axes 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”). Sekiya teaches that standard/constant properties of a target tissue will naturally cause a corresponding value group to be displayed in the same position on the same scatter diagram assuming a constant scale or set of axes, as referenced in claim 1. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that if the image data normalization of Gillies is also applied when generating the scatter plot, as taught by Zhang, then the position of a value group on the scatter diagram corresponding to a target should also be normalized, as taught by Sekiya.
Zhang and the combination of Gillies in view of Sekiya are analogous to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same issue of generating a scatter plot to analyze 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 Sekiya with the teachings of Zhang to ensure a reference value group is displayed in a desired location on a scatter plot by adjusting the axes. The motivation would have been to “present/magnify certain image features” as taught by Zhang ([0054]), or so a user may more easily visualize the difference to other value groups when the reference is in a consistent position.
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Gillies in view of Sekiya teaches: The image processing apparatus according to claim 13, but does not explicitly teach: 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; being switched from one to another; and being superimposed on one another.
Zhang teaches: 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 (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; and being superimposed on one another (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.”).
Zhang and the combination of Gillies in view of Sekiya are analogous to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same issue of generating a scatter plot to analyze 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 Sekiya with the 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.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gillies (US 20170071496 A1) in view of Sekiya (US 20200082579 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 Sekiya 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 three-dimensional axes, as the scatter diagram.
Spencer teaches: wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to generate a ternary graph having the three-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 and the combination of Gillies in view of Sekiya are analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of image analysis and pertain to the same issue 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 Sekiya 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 Sekiya (US 20200082579 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 Sekiya teaches: The image processing apparatus according to claim 1, but may 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 couse the display to display the scatter diagram.
In the same art of generating graphical representations of data, 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 couse 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 and the combination of Gillies in view of Sekiya are analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of generating 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 Sekiya 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 Sekiya (US 20200082579 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 Sekiya 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 target tissues, and, when positions of the value groups respectively related to the plurality of target tissues overlap with one another in the scatter diagram, arrange a value group related to a target tissue in a higher priority rank to be displayed closer to a viewer than value groups related to other target 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 target tissues (first image, user may drag layers up and down to change the stacking order), and, when positions of the value groups respectively related to the plurality of target tissues overlap with one another in the scatter diagram, arrange a value group related to a target tissue in a higher priority rank to be displayed closer to a viewer than value groups related to other target tissues (second image, “Bamboo” layer is now displayed in front of overlapping “Borders” layer after the user changes the stacking order).
Adobe and the combination of Gillies in view of Sekiya are analogous to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same issue of graphical editing operations. 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 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Gillies (US 20170071496 A1) in view of Sekiya (US 20200082579 A1) and further in view of Spencer (US 6356646 B1) teaches: The image processing apparatus according to claim 7, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to generate the ternary graph (Spencer, see claim 7) displaying the value group related to the target tissue in such a manner that the value group related to the specific target is always displayed in the same position (Sekiya, 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…”).
The combination of Gillies in view of Sekiya and further in view of Spencer does not explicitly teach: by adjusting display ranges of the axes of the ternary graph generated on a basis of the pixel values so as to fit the position of the value group related to the specific target and subsequently changing a shape of the post-adjustment ternary graph into an equilateral triangle.
Zhang (US 20220292666 A1) teaches: by adjusting display ranges of the axes of the ternary graph generated on a basis of the pixel values so as to fit the position of the value group related to the specific target (see claim 6); the motivation to combine this reference would have been the same as claim 6.
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.
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.
Kimura (US 9924887 B2) teaches aligning MR images to a reference MR image so that each may be displayed in a same position (col. 4 lines 52-67 to col. 5 lines 1-6; claim 1). However, this reference teaches a standardized alignment for the actual MR images, not for a scatter diagram or other plot of values generated from the MR images.
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
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