CTNF 18/657,843 CTNF 98256 Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Notice to Applicants This communication is in response to the application filed on 05/08/2024 The claims 1-21 are pending. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) filed on 05/08/2024 has been fully considered. 07-30-03-h AIA Claim Interpretation 07-30-03 AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f): (f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. 07-30-05 The claims in this application 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 when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked. As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: (A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term “unit” used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function; (B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and (C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder “unit” that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are: “a finding acquiring unit” in claims 1-5, 7. As defined in the specification at paragraphs [0006] and [0038] as a computing module which acquires an image feature amount/value of interest of the input target image. “a finding selecting unit” in claims 1, 3, 5, 7-8. As defined in the specification at paragraphs [0006], and [0039] as a computer-based unit/module configured to select at least one imaging finding from the plurality of imaging findings to be output to display as a finding of interest. “a determining unit” in claims 1, 9-11, 16-18. As defined in the specification at paragraphs [0006], and [0039] as a computer-based unit/module for determining a display condition of the target image based on the selected imaging finding output by the finding selecting unit. “an influence degree acquiring unit” in claims 5-6. As defined in the specification at paragraphs [0047], and [0075] as a computer-based unit/module for acquiring an influence degree that each element included in the input information exerts on the inference result. “a diagnosis inference unit” in claim 6. As defined in claim 6 and in the specification at paragraphs [0074-0075] as a computer-based unit/module for inferring a diagnosis name based on the input information. “an image acquiring unit” in claims 1, 9, 11, and 13. As defined in the specification at paragraphs [0006], and [0039] as a computer-based function/program configured to acquire a display image satisfying the determined image processing condition and labels the image as “display image” for display on a display of the computing system. Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recites sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows: Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title. Claims 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. All of the claims are method claims (20-21), apparatus/machine claims (1-19) or manufacture claim (NA) under (Step 1), but under Step 2A prong 1 all of these claims recite abstract ideas and specifically mental processes—concepts performed in the human mind including steps of observation, acquiring, selecting, and determining which are generally described as a human visually observing a label to judge the locations and dimensions of empty regions in order to insert content into these empty regions; furthermore these mental processes are more particularly with method claim 20 used as an example: Recited in claim 20 as: acquiring, for a medical image being a diagnosis target, a plurality of imaging findings… selecting at least one imaging finding from the plurality of imaging findings; determining, an image processing condition suitable for observation of an imaging finding… acquiring a display image satisfying the determined image processing condition for display. It is noted that the above analysis is according to the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance published in the Federal Register (84 FR 50) on January 7, 2019 and MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Consider also that “If a claim recites a limitation that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper, the limitation falls within the mental processes grouping, and the claim recites an abstract idea” as per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(B). See also footnotes 14 and 15 of the Federal Register Notice. As detailed above, the steps of content generating, recognizing, detecting, etc. may be practically performed in the human mind with the use of a physical aid such as a pen and paper (the user would receive medical images and group them based on findings or defects/points of interest into groups based on a determined condition such as having a point of interest or not having a point of interest, this occurs by selecting a specific finding to sort for with a specific condition for example tissue images comprising potential cancerous cells or not comprising cancerous cells for example, based on user observation the images are sorted into groups and an image is selected for display based on its findings and the group it was sorted to which all could be done by a user with pen and paper in their own mind). There are no additional elements for claim 20 as all limitations included in claim 20 represent mental processes. Under step 2A, prong 2, the claim does not recite any additional elements in order to integrate the judicial exception introduced in the independent claims 1, and 20 as previously stated in prong 1 above, there are no additional elements for claim 20. The claims fail to recite or integrate an additional element and taking independent system/apparatus claims 1 and 21 as an example merely recites the words “to execute” which are interpreted to mean substantially “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and does not integrate the judicial exception. Further the abstract idea fails to make an improvement to the claimed generic computing system in claims 1 and 21 and as such fails to integrate a judicial exception to the claims under step 2A prong 2, taking claim 1 and 21 as the example: A) “An image processing apparatus” as recited in claim 1 and comprises a generic computing component that does not provide significantly more. B) “an acquiring unit” as recited in claims 1-5, 7 and comprises a generic computing component to capture/acquire information based on captured medical images that does not provide significantly more. The unit is provided as a standard medical image acquisition system and includes a mammography system, an x-ray system, an MRI and the like to provide the medical images which are stated to be generic computing system known in the art at paragraph [0036] of HALL. C) “a display” as recited in claim 14 and comprises a generic computing component to display information and results that does not provide significantly more. D) “a computer recording medium for recording a program for executing each of the steps of the image processing method of claim 20”. Which all comprise computer program products ran on a generic computing device described in claim 21 and not adding significantly more to the claims. Under step 2A prong 2, the above identified generically recited computer elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. The examiner maintains all of these steps comprise mental process steps which have not been integrated into significantly more by structural/additional claimed elements. Under Step 2B, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because each of claims 1-21 do not recite additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application. The only additional elements {a generic computing and imaging system (claim 1) medical imaging systems are stated to be generic to the art in prior art HALL at paragraph [0036], a computer recording medium storing an information processing program (claim 21), and an image processing apparatus/computer (claim 1) which comprises a generic computing system} are recited at a high level of generality and merely equate to previously mentioned “to execute”/“apply it” or otherwise merely uses a generic computer and generic computing components as a tool to perform an abstract idea/mental process which are not indicative of integration into a practical application as per MPEP 2106.05(f). The corresponding dependent claims further fail to introduce significantly more to the claims and only include the generic computing components introduced and discussed in the independent claims. See also MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) with respect to Mental Processes: “Nor do the courts distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer”. See also MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C)(3) Using a computer as tool to perform a mental process and MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(D) as well as the case law cited therein. Further, the depending claims do not remedy these deficiencies: - claims 2-13, and 15-19 further recite mental processes which could be performed in the human mind with pen, paper, and generic computing components of the trade. - claim 14 further recites a display component to display post solution activity on a generic computing component. - claims 15-19 represent post solution activity of cropping a display image, superimposing a display image, partitioning a display image providing side by side comparison of display images and providing the ability to switch between display images which all comprise post solution activity of various ways to display image processing method results on said generic display. In other words, the additional elements and/or are recited at a high level of generality that does not amount to significantly more and/ such that they could practically be performed in the human mind. For all of the above reasons, taken alone or in combination, claims 1-21 recite a non-statutory mental process. Claim 21 is further rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claim is directed to “a recording medium” and can be interpreted as a signal per se and not a hardware embodiment, where a machine claim is directed towards a system, apparatus, or arrangement. Paragraph [0112] of the specification provide examples of non-transitory embodiments for a computer-readable storage medium, but fail to define a recording medium to exclude transitory signal embodiments. It is advised that the applicant amend the phrase “a recording medium” to read “a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium” in order to overcome 101 rejections to the claim. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA) 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. 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – 07-08-aia AIA (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. 07-12-aia AIA (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. 07-15 AIA Claim s 1-7, 10-11, and 13-21 are rejected under 35 § U.S.C. 102( a)(1 ) as being anticipated by US 2020/0360312 A1 to HALL et al (hereinafter “HALL”) . As per claim 1, HALL discloses a n image processing apparatus comprising: a finding acquiring unit configured to acquire (a computing system and corresponding method of operation to perform an image processing operation on a medical image(s), where the computing system comprises computer components such as a memory and a processor to store and execute programs/instructions related to the image processing operations/method; abstract; figs 1-3; paragraphs [0036-0038]) , for a medical image being a diagnosis target (the computing system adapted to receive a plurality of breast images and image metadata from an image acquisition unit 210 such as a mammography system, an x-ray system, an MRI and the like, or from an image storage unit or device 220, directly or using a network interface; abstract; figs 1-3; paragraph [0036]) , a plurality of imaging findings as a first imaging finding group (the breast mammograms are classified in four different classes class A-D and the classes are determined by breast density from the mammogram image, ; figs 1-3; paragraphs [0003], [0016-0018], [0108-0111], [0145], [0177-0180]) ; a finding selecting unit configured to select at least one imaging finding from the plurality of imaging findings (the finding/image feature that is focused on in analysis of the mammogram images is breast density of the images, and is directly tied to breast cancer diagnosis and health monitoring and is carried out by an FDA approved density measurement device such as but not limited to a VuComp M-Vu tool acting as the finding selection tool and the findings can be sorted viewed and interacted with over a user interface provided by the computing system using a display and input tools; figs 1-3; paragraphs [0157], [0164], [0188],[0191]) ; a determining unit configured to determine, for the selected at least one imaging finding, an image processing condition suitable for observation of an imaging finding (the computing system includes digital processor 100 which acts as a determining unit to make a plurality of determinations including calculating a breast compression score (image processing condition used for classification) directly related to the found density measurements and would be used to classify the breast images by density into the four discloses classes A, B, C, or D; figs 1, 3, 8A-B; paragraphs [0003], [0036], [0078], [0101], [0104-0112], [0255-0259]) ; and an image acquiring unit configured to acquire a display image satisfying the determined image processing condition (the computing system includes a camera/or an image acquisition device database and the digital processing device includes a display to send visual information to a user and would be used to display the aligned breast images and used to determine density and classifications based on said density/compression score; figs 1-3; paragraphs [0020], [0027], [0078], [0162-0164], [0173]) . As per claim 2, HALL discloses the image processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the finding acquiring unit is configured to acquire an imaging finding obtained through inference performed on the medical image (the computing system is adapted to perform analysis (which is synonyms with inference) in order to use a compression score algorithm to determine data on breast image density in order to sort the image after alignment into corresponding breast density classes in order to perform further processing to determine breast cancer disease presence and periodic monitoring of disease progression based on the processed medical images; paragraphs [0138-0140]) . As per claim 3, HALL discloses the image processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the finding selecting unit is configured to select the at least one imaging finding based on a likelihood of an imaging finding inferred by the finding acquiring unit (the diagnostic output comprises a change in the breast density in a subject the prognostic (diagnostic) output comprises a likelihood of recurrence of the breast cancer (findings based on found image feature of breast density classification) in the subject or designation of the subject as a responder or a non-responder to therapy such as to neo-adjuvant or adjuvant therapy comprising of chemotherapy or endocrine therapy; paragraph [0144]) . As per claim 4, HALL discloses the image processing apparatus according to claim 3, wherein the finding acquiring unit is configured to convert an image feature amount of the medical image being the diagnosis target into the first imaging finding group having the likelihood assigned thereto (the diagnostic output comprises a change in the breast density in a subject the prognostic (diagnostic) output comprises a likelihood of recurrence of the breast cancer (findings based on found image feature of breast density classification) in the subject or designation of the subject as a responder or a non-responder to therapy such as to neo-adjuvant or adjuvant therapy comprising of chemotherapy or endocrine therapy and would assign the likelihood based on the classification results of the aligned images being classified based on breast density wherein classes C and D are stated to be indicators of breast disease BIRADS; paragraphs [0104-0109], [0144]) . As per claim 5, HALL discloses the image processing apparatus according to claim 1, further comprising an influence degree acquiring unit configured to acquire an influence degree on diagnosis of an imaging finding inferred by the finding acquiring unit, wherein the finding selecting unit is configured to select the at least one imaging finding based on the acquired influence degree (the computing system comprising the processing unit 100 is adapted to perform he function of accounting for influence factors on breast density scores such as BMI this is accounted for in the compression determination algorithm as the input BMI value will influence the resulting density value used for classification based on the compression score which is stated to be directly influence/correlated to BMI values; paragraphs [0183], [0236-0239], [0249]) . As per claim 6, HALL discloses the image processing apparatus according to claim 5, further comprising a diagnosis inference unit configured to infer a diagnosis name through use of an imaging finding as input (the computing system comprises a processing unit 100 configured to determine diagnose and predict breast cancer severity and progression of the disease and is further adapted to diagnose breast disease such as cancers and BIRADS based on input images and image feature information related to density of the breast imaged via mammogram methods; abstract; paragraphs [0030-0031], [0085] [0108]; claims 23-24) , wherein the influence degree acquiring unit is configured to acquire, as the influence degree on the diagnosis, an influence degree of the imaging finding on the inferred diagnosis name (the BMI influence factor is input to the compression score algorithm and is included in the diagnosis made about the subjects breast cancer based on the breast images input into the model/computing system; paragraphs [0183], [0236-0239], [0249]) . As per claim 7, HALL discloses the image processing apparatus according to claim 1, further comprising a finding acquiring unit configured to acquire at least one second imaging finding corresponding to a medical image that corresponds to the medical image being the diagnosis target and has a different imaging period (the breast images are compared and tracked over a plurality of features including density, and compression score and other image features, the images used for comparison are captured at different periodic time points in order to accurately track progression of the disease; figs 8A-B; paragraphs [0020], [0027], [0044]; CLAIMS 15-16) , wherein the finding selecting unit is configured to select the at least one imaging finding based on the first imaging finding group and the at least one second imaging finding (the computing system comprising processing unit 100 is adapted to based on the instructions and programs provide use the density values and compression scores to distribute the aligned breast images into 4 classes based on density value of the images; figs 8A-B; paragraphs [0020], [0027], [0044], [0253]; CLAIMS 15-16) . As per claim 10, HALL discloses the image processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the determining unit is configured to determine the image processing condition based on an item of the selected at least one imaging finding and a value of the selected at least one imaging finding (the computing system is adapted to classify the images based on the resulting density values of the breast images; paragraphs [0003], [0021], [0028], [0065], [0075-0078], [0108]; CLAIM 5) . As per claim 11, HALL discloses the image processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the image acquiring unit is configured to acquire, as the display image, the medical image being the diagnosis target subjected to image processing that is based on the image processing condition determined by the determining unit (the computing system acquires the aligned classified breast image and is adapted to via the systems, media and methods disclosed include transmission devices comprising an output means for transmitting one or more data, results, outputs, information, biomedical outputs, biomedical reports and/or classifiers, the output means takes any form which transmits the data, results, requests, and/or information and comprises a monitor, printed format, printer, computer, processor, memory location, or a combination thereof and is used to acquire the final aligned image and display said image; figs 1-3, 8a-b; paragraphs [0003], [0016-0018], [0108-0111], [0145], [0177-0180]) . As per claim 13, HALL discloses the image processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the image acquiring unit is configured to acquire the display image based on the image processing condition from a plurality of images subjected to different types of image processing (a plurality of mammogram images are processed in a plurality of ways and include density values of the breast images used to classify the images for further processing, high density images will further be analyzed for breast cancer and low density images may be determined to be background images and not further processed; figs 1-3; paragraphs [0003], [0016-0018], [0108-0111], [0145], [0177-0180]) . As per claim 14, HALL discloses the image processing apparatus according to claim 1, further comprising a display control unit configured to cause a display unit to display the medical image being the diagnosis target (the computing system includes a display keyboards, mouse and controls for viewing and interacting with the user interface in order to view results and make image comparisons; fig 1; paragraphs [0036], [0178]) . As per claim 15, HALL discloses the image processing apparatus according to claim 14, wherein the display control unit is configured to generate, when the medical image being the diagnosis target is displayed, a partial medical image including a region corresponding to the at least one imaging finding from the display image, and cause the display unit to display the partial medical image (the computing system is adapted to display partial regions of images corresponding to regions of interest for diagnostic and out/viewing purposes and may output only a region of the breast image tissue that is relevant to diagnosis; fig 1-2; paragraphs [0036], [0067-0069], [0178]) . As per claim 16, HALL discloses the image processing apparatus according to claim 15, wherein the display control unit is configured to cause, when the image processing condition applied to display of the medical image being the diagnosis target is different from the image processing condition of the partial medical image determined by the determining unit, the display unit to display a superimposition image obtained by superimposing the partial medical image onto the medical image being the diagnosis target (the computing system is further adapted to perform the method of superimposing regions oof interest of the breast image in order to output important information to the user of the diagnostic images; fig 1-2; paragraphs [0036], [0067-0069], [0178]) . As per claim 17, HALL discloses the image processing apparatus according to claim 15, wherein the display control unit is configured to cause, when the image processing condition applied to display of the medical image being the diagnosis target is different from the image processing condition of the partial medical image determined by the determining unit, the display unit to display the partial medical image so as to be comparable to the medical image being the diagnosis target (the computing system is adapted to via a computer processor and display multiple images of mammogram images used for comparison purposes to show the progression of disease in different images captured a time period part and is further adapted to superimpose regions of interest of both of the images; figs 1-2; paragraphs [0067-0069, [0089], [0108-0112]) . As per claim 18, HALL discloses the image processing apparatus according to claim 1, further comprising a display control unit configured to cause, when the image processing condition applied to display of the medical image being the diagnosis target is different from the image processing condition determined by the determining unit, a display unit to display the display image so as to be comparable to the medical image being the diagnosis target (the computing system is adapted to include a display and a keyboard and mouse to control the user interface provided and via the user interface allowing the user to compare the two breast medical images and their related density information; figs 1-2; paragraphs [0036], [0067-0069, [0089], [0108-0112], [0178]) . As per claim 19, HALL discloses the image processing apparatus according to claim 14, wherein the display control unit is configured to cause, when a plurality of imaging findings are selected and image processing conditions are determined for the plurality of imaging findings, respectively, the display unit to display, together with the medical image being the diagnosis target, display images satisfying the plurality of the image processing conditions, respectively, in a switchable manner (the prior mention computer peripheral such as keyboard and mouse would be used to access the computer interface and switch the viewable image on the display in order to perform image comparison steps; figs 1-2; paragraphs [0067-0070], [0075], [0091-0093], [0122-0127], [0164]) . As per claim 20, HALL discloses an image processing method comprising (a computing system and corresponding method of operation to perform an image processing operation on a medical image(s), where the computing system comprises computer components such as a memory and a processor to store and execute programs/instructions related to the image processing operations/method; abstract; figs 1-3; paragraphs [0036-0038]) : acquiring, for a medical image being a diagnosis target () , a plurality of imaging findings as a first imaging finding group (the computing system adapted to receive a plurality of breast images and image metadata from an image acquisition unit 210 such as a mammography system, an x-ray system, an MRI and the like, or from an image storage unit or device 220, directly or using a network interface; abstract; figs 1-3; paragraph [0036]) ; selecting at least one imaging finding from the plurality of imaging findings (the finding/image feature that is focused on in analysis of the mammogram images is breast density of the images, and is directly tied to breast cancer diagnosis and health monitoring and is carried out by an FDA approved density measurement device such as but not limited to a VuComp M-Vu tool acting as the finding selection tool and the findings can be sorted viewed and interacted with over a user interface provided by the computing system using a display and input tools; figs 1-3; paragraphs [0157], [0164], [0188],[0191]) ; determining, for the selected at least one imaging finding, an image processing condition suitable for observation of an imaging finding (the computing system includes digital processor 100 which acts as a determining unit to make a plurality of determinations including calculating a breast compression score (image processing condition used for classification) directly related to the found density measurements and would be used to classify the breast images by density into the four discloses classes A, B, C, or D; figs 1, 3, 8A-B; paragraphs [0003], [0036], [0078], [0101], [0104-0112], [0255-0259]) ; and acquiring a display image satisfying the determined image processing condition (the computing system includes a camera/or an image acquisition device database and the digital processing device includes a display to send visual information to a user and would be used to display the aligned breast images and used to determine density and classifications based on said density/compression score; figs 1-3; paragraphs [0020], [0027], [0078], [0162-0164], [0173]) . As per claim 21, HALL discloses a recording medium for recording a program for executing each of the steps of the image processing method of claim 20 when being executed by a computer (the computing system which runs the operation method includes a computer memory component which stores programs, instructions, and data in order to execute them using a processor and to perform the methods descried; abstract; fig 1; paragraphs [0026], [0164], [0178]) . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA) 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness. Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 § U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over US 2020/0360312 A1 to HALL et al (hereinafter “HALL”) in view of US 20240029251 A1 to ICHINOSE (hereinafter “ICHINOSE”). As per claim 8 , HALL discloses the image processing apparatus according to claim 1. HALL fails to disclose wherein the finding selecting unit is configured to select the at least one imaging finding based on the first imaging finding group and a second imaging finding obtained based on a medical image corresponding to the medical image being the diagnosis target. ICHINOSE discloses wherein the finding selecting unit is configured to select the at least one imaging finding based on the first imaging finding group and a second imaging finding obtained based on a medical image corresponding to the medical image being the diagnosis target (the first analysis unit 42C inputs a partial image of a region including the abnormal shadow in the diagnosis target image to the trained model M3 the trained model M3 outputs findings having a degree of certainty of findings equal to or greater than a predetermined threshold value TH2 such as a certainty value over 0.5 as shown in FIG. 22 an example in which five findings are output from the trained model M3 which includes a first and second finding based on a medical image and the diagnoses target of model M3; fig 22; paragraph [0115]) . It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify HALL to have configured to select the at least one imaging finding based on the first imaging finding group and a second imaging finding of ICHINOSE reference. The Suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to provide the total amount of findings in the partial image over a user set threshold to ensure all findings of interest are accounted for as suggested by ICHINOSE at paragraph [0115]. Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above by known method with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine ICHINOSE with HALL to obtain the invention as specified in claim 8. As per claim 9, HALL discloses the image processing apparatus according to claim 1. HALL fails to disclose further comprising an identification unit configured to identify an abnormal shadow from the medical image being the diagnosis target, wherein the determining unit is configured to determine the image processing condition for an imaging finding relating to the abnormal shadow, and wherein the image acquiring unit is configured to acquire an image satisfying the image processing condition and including the abnormal shadow as the display image. ICHINOSE discloses further comprising an identification unit configured to identify an abnormal shadow from the medical image being the diagnosis target, wherein the determining unit is configured to determine the image processing condition for an imaging finding relating to the abnormal shadow, and wherein the image acquiring unit is configured to acquire an image satisfying the image processing condition and including the abnormal shadow as the display image (the model M3 is adapted to point out finding within a input partial image based on a user defined thresholds wherein the findings are related to abnormal shadows of the partial input image; paragraphs [0115]) . It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify HALL to have an identification unit configured to identify an abnormal shadow from the medical image of ICHINOSE reference. The Suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to provide the total amount of findings related to abnormal shadows in the partial image over a user set threshold to ensure all findings of interest are accounted for as suggested by ICHINOSE at paragraph [0115]. Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above by known method with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine ICHINOSE with HALL to obtain the invention as specified in claim 9. Claim 12 is rejected under 35 § U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over US 2020/0360312 A1 to HALL et al (hereinafter “HALL”) in view of US 2017/0164830 A1 to HUANG et al. (hereinafter “HUANG”). As per claim 12, HALL discloses the image processing apparatus according to claim 11. HALL fails to disclose wherein the image processing that is based on the image processing condition is at least one of luminance level changing processing, gradation converting processing, resolution converting processing, or cropping processing. HUANG discloses wherein the image processing that is based on the image processing condition is at least one of luminance level changing processing, gradation converting processing, resolution converting processing, or cropping processing (the computing system is adapted to perform a plurality of image processing techniques on the input images including, resizing/cropping, generating a new image in a greater resolution in the vicinity of the detected point or with a different imaging mode like by using a different wavelength camera or a different illumination or a camera of a more accurate imaging area; paragraph [0063]) . It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify HALL to have the image processing condition is at least one of luminance level changing processing, gradation converting processing, resolution converting processing, or cropping processing of HUANG reference. The Suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to provide for a more accurate imaging representation of the region of interest of the medical image by applying known image improvement techniques as suggested by paragraph [0063] of HUANG. Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above by known method with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine HUANG with HALL to obtain the invention as specified in claim 12. Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. These prior arts include the following: US 2023/0410483 A1 US 2023/0268068 A1 US 11,210,785 B1 US 2019/0034800 A1 Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEVIN JACOB DHOOGE whose telephone number is (571) 270-0999. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30-5:00. 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, Andrew Bee can be reached on (571) 270-5183. 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. /Devin Dhooge/ USPTO Patent Examiner Art Unit 2677 /ANDREW W BEE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2677 Application/Control Number: 18/657,843 Page 2 Art Unit: 2677 Application/Control Number: 18/657,843 Page 3 Art Unit: 2677 Application/Control Number: 18/657,843 Page 5 Art Unit: 2677 Application/Control Number: 18/657,843 Page 6 Art Unit: 2677 Application/Control Number: 18/657,843 Page 7 Art Unit: 2677 Application/Control Number: 18/657,843 Page 8 Art Unit: 2677 Application/Control Number: 18/657,843 Page 9 Art Unit: 2677 Application/Control Number: 18/657,843 Page 10 Art Unit: 2677 Application/Control Number: 18/657,843 Page 11 Art Unit: 2677 Application/Control Number: 18/657,843 Page 12 Art Unit: 2677 Application/Control Number: 18/657,843 Page 13 Art Unit: 2677 Application/Control Number: 18/657,843 Page 14 Art Unit: 2677 Application/Control Number: 18/657,843 Page 15 Art Unit: 2677 Application/Control Number: 18/657,843 Page 16 Art Unit: 2677 Application/Control Number: 18/657,843 Page 17 Art Unit: 2677 Application/Control Number: 18/657,843 Page 18 Art Unit: 2677 Application/Control Number: 18/657,843 Page 19 Art Unit: 2677 Application/Control Number: 18/657,843 Page 20 Art Unit: 2677 Application/Control Number: 18/657,843 Page 21 Art Unit: 2677 Application/Control Number: 18/657,843 Page 22 Art Unit: 2677
Prosecution Insights