DETAILED ACTION
This Action is in response to Applicant’s response filed on 05/11/2026.
New claim 9 has been added.
Claims 1-9 are now pending in the present application. This Action is made FINAL.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection in view of Mankovich (US 2015/0235365 A1).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 1-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith (US 2021/0407082 A1) in view of Periaswamy (US 2010/0246912 A1) and in further view of Mankovich (US 2015/0235365 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 8, Smith discloses a medical image processing apparatus comprising processing circuitry configured to:
[claim 8: A non-transitory computer readable medium comprising instructions that cause a computer to execute: (paragraph 253)]
acquire a first image and a second image with respect to a target site of a subject, the first image and the second image being medical images with different imaging times, (paragraph 14: The first set of cross-sectional medical images is associated with a first timepoint. The second set of cross-sectional medical images includes cross-sectional images of the patient captured at a second timepoint that is different than the first timepoint.)
set a plurality of regions of interest (lesions are the ROIs therefore a plurality of lesions imply a plurality of ROIs for the timepoint image sets) in the first image and the second image, (paragraph 14: A plurality of entries including anatomic location information and annotation information associated with a plurality of lesions represented in a plurality cross-sectional medical images from a first set of cross-sectional medical images of a patient.)
specify pairs of corresponding regions of interest in the first image and the second image among the plurality of regions of interest, and (paragraph 14: identify a predicted matching cross-sectional medical image from the second set of cross-sectional medical images that corresponds to the particular cross-sectional medical image associated with the particular entry; paragraph 136: Certain aspects and/or features of the guided presentation described hereinabove referring to FIGS. 23-26 may also apply in later-timepoint analysis of previously analyzed lesions, as depicted in FIGS. 28-33. For instance, a user may select a control (e.g., a “Start Autopilot” button 2810, as shown in FIG. 28) to initiate a guided analysis of lesions represented in the second set of cross-sectional images 2804 based at least in part on information associated with the previously analyzed lesions).
cause a display to display the first image and the second image, and cause the display to display information corresponding to each of the plurality of regions of interest between the first image and the second image (paragraph 14: The system is configurable to display a respective representation of each of the plurality of entries of the first data structure and present a second set of cross-sectional medical images of the patient and present the predicted matching cross-sectional medical image simultaneously with the particular cross-sectional medical image, particular anatomic location information from the particular entry for the particular lesion, and particular annotation information from the particular entry for the particular lesion. Paragraph 122: The system provides a list of information related to analyzed lesions.)
but fails to specifically disclose in a manner such that regions of interest for which the pair has been specified are distinguished from regions of interest for which the pair has not been specified and cause the display to display a first display area to display the first image, a second display area to display the second image, and a third display area located between the first display area and the second display area, and to cause the display to display the information in the third display area.
In related art, Periaswamy teaches regions of interest for which the pair has been specified are distinguished from regions of interest for which the pair has not been specified. (paragraph 8, 11 and 67: Periaswamy distinguishes matches vs unmatched ROIs using different display notations. In paragraph 8, matched set may be specially depicted using a first notation. Said first notation may be double circle. In paragraph 11, Periaswamy teaches unmatched ROIs: “to which no candidate suspicious anomaly in the registered second acquired anatomical colon image corresponds, whereby the said candidate suspicious anomaly is not part of a matched set, classifying the said unmatched candidate suspicious anomaly as belonging to a true positive class” and “The at least one unmatched candidate suspicious anomaly classified as belonging to a true positive class may be specially depicted using a second notation. Said second notation may be a single circle.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Periaswamy into the teachings of Smith to effectively improve the automatic identification of anomalies in imaged structures.
Furthermore, in related art, Mankovich discloses causing the display to display a first display area to display the first image, a second display area to display the second image, and a third display area located between the first display area and the second display area, and to cause the display to display the information in the third display area. (Mankovich discloses displaying a selected key image form a prior study alongside a comparable image slice from a current study, see paragraph 45. Mankovich further discloses a left window display 44 showing the comparable prior study and a right window display 46 showing the current study, paragraph 46. The left window includes a display of prior study image 52 (paragraph 47) while the right window includes current study image 66 (paragraph 49). As show in in figure 3, scrollbar 54 is positioned between prior study image 52 and current study image 66. Mankovich further discloses displaying visual indicators 56 of proximate annotations within scrollbar 54, see paragraph 47. Therefore, scrollbar 54 teaches the claimed third display area located between the first and second display areas, and visual indicators 56 teach displaying the information in the third display area.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Mankovich into the teachings of Smith and Periaswamy for an improved multi-study image navigation.
Regarding claim 2, Smith, as modified by Periaswamy and Mankovich, discloses the claimed invention wherein the processing circuitry causes the display to arrange and display pairs of the information corresponding to the regions of interest for which the pair has been specified. (Smith: paragraphs 134-136)
Regarding claim 3, Smith, as modified by Periaswamy and Mankovich, discloses the claimed invention wherein the processing circuitry causes the display to display at least an image of the region of interest as the information corresponding to each of the plurality of regions of interest. (Smith: paragraph 14)
Regarding claim 4, Smith, as modified by Periaswamy and Mankovich, discloses the claimed invention wherein the setting of the region of interest by the processing circuitry is performed when an operator designates an area in the first image or the second image displayed on the display, and the processing circuitry causes the display to display an enlarged image corresponding to the area in response to the designation of the area. (Smith: paragraphs 92-93)
Regarding claim 5, Smith, as modified by Periaswamy and Mankovich, discloses the claimed invention wherein the processing circuitry receives selection of the information made by an operator, at least one of the first image and the second image is a three-dimensional medical image obtained by imaging a three-dimensional area of the subject, and when a region of interest corresponding to the information for which the selection has been received is a region set by the processing circuitry in the three-dimensional medical image, the processing circuitry causes the display to display a cross-section including the region of interest in the three-dimensional medical image. (Smith: paragraphs 14 and 70)
Regarding claim 6, Smith, as modified by Periaswamy and Mankovich, discloses the claimed invention wherein the processing circuitry supplements, as supplementary information, clinical information of the subject at a time phase, in which an image has been acquired, to at least one of the first image or the second image, determines a reliability of the pairs of the specified regions of interest based on the supplementary information, and causes the display to display information on the reliability along with the information. (Smith: paragraphs 77 and 132)
Regarding claim 7, Smith, as modified by Periaswamy and Mankovich, discloses the claimed invention wherein the processing circuitry specifies a region of interest anatomically close to a non-specified region of interest being a region of interest, for which no pair has not been specified in one of the first image or the second image, in the other of the first image or the second image, and causes the information corresponding to the non-specified region of interest to be displayed near the information corresponding to a region of interest specified in the other image. (Smith: paragraphs 77, 133-136 and 160)
Reasons for Allowance
Claim 9 is allowed. None of the prior art discloses
PNG
media_image1.png
452
595
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
192
604
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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 BOBBAK SAFAIPOUR whose telephone number is (571)270-1092. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00am - 5:00pm.
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, Stephen Koziol can be reached at (408) 918-7630. 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.
/BOBBAK SAFAIPOUR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2665
Prosecution Insights