DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-27 are pending.
Claim Interpretation - 35 USC § 112(f)
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.
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 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 preAIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder 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 limitation(s) is/are:
Claim 1:
“a first image acquiring unit configured to…”;
“a comparison image acquiring unit configured to…”; and
“a subtraction image acquiring unit configured to…”.
Claim 3:
“a subtraction image acquiring unit configured to…”.
Claim 7:
“a priority setting unit configured to…”.
Claim 12:
“a display control unit configured to…”.
Claim 17:
“a priority acquiring unit configured to…”.
Claim 18:
“a first image acquiring unit configured to…”; and
“a comparison image acquiring unit configured to…”.
Claim 19:
“a first image acquiring unit configured to…”;
“a comparison image acquiring unit configured to…”;
“a subtraction image acquiring unit configured to…”; and
“an evaluating unit configured to…”.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/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 this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/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 limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or preAIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
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 1-4, 7-18, 20-23 and 25-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding independent claims 1 and 18 (and claims 20 and 23), the following 2-step analysis is applied for analyzing the 35 U.S.C. § 101 subject matter eligibility of the claims. Claims 20 and 23 recite similar limitations.
Step 1: The Statutory Categories
Claims 1 and 18 recite an "image processing apparatus," which falls within the statutory category of a machine.
Step 2A: The Judicial Exceptions
Prong 1: do the claims recite an exception?
Claims 1 and 18 are directed to the abstract idea of organizing information based on a priority hierarchy and mental processes.
Claim 1 recites the broad concept of acquiring data in accordance with a "priority".
Claim 18 specifically recites a conditional "if-then" logic (e.g., if a past examination is unavailable, then acquire an image with a different contrast state).
These represent basic logical principles and methods of organizing human activity that can be (and traditionally are) performed in the mind of a practitioner or through a manual filing system.
Prong 2: is the exception integrated into a practical application?
The claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The "image acquiring units" are recited as generic computer/imaging components performing their standard functions of data retrieval. The claims do not describe a technical improvement to the imaging hardware itself (e.g., a better sensor or faster processing algorithm) nor do they solve a technical problem in computer functionality. Instead, they merely automate a "search and select" protocol using a computer.
Step 2B: The Inventive Concept
Do the claims amount to "significantly more" than the exception?
The additional elements in Claims 1 and 18 consist of "well-understood, routine, and conventional" activities.
Acquiring image data from a database and comparing it to a current scan is a fundamental task in medical diagnostics.
Implementing a "priority" or "fallback" logic (as in Claim 18) is a standard programming practice.
Adding these generic computer-implemented steps to an abstract selection process does not provide an "inventive concept" sufficient to transform the claims into patent-eligible subject matter.
Conclusion: Claims 1 and 18 are directed to an abstract idea and lack an inventive concept. Claims 1 and 18 are rejected as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding dependent claims 2-4, 7-17, 21-22 and 25-26: limitations in these dependent claims have been examined in a similar way as to claims 1 and 18. It was found that:
Claims 2, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 17, 21, 22: Ineligible. These focus on the logic of "calculating" or "setting" priority based on dates, times, or contrast states. This is mathematical/organizational data manipulation with no technical transformation.
Claims 3, 4, 13, 15: Ineligible. Adding a "subtraction image" or "subtraction operation" is typically viewed as a mathematical concept. Performing subtraction on data does not, by itself, provide an inventive concept.
Claims 12, 14, 16: Ineligible. These recite "displaying" images or "displaying information." Under the Electric Power Group precedent, collecting, analyzing, and displaying information is a core abstract idea.
Claims 25-26: Ineligible. These claims recite similar limitations to independent claims 20 and 23.
Therefore, claims 2-4, 7-17, 21-22 and 25-26 are not sufficient to overcome the § 101 rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-4, 12, 14, 19-21, 24-25 and 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mahesh (US20070071294) in view of MacMahon et al (US20050111718).
Regarding claims 1, 20 and 25, Mahesh teaches an image processing apparatus comprising:
a first image acquiring unit configured to acquire first image data which is image data obtained by imaging a subject by a first examination; and
(Mahesh, Fig. 1; "medical diagnosis and tracking system 100 used in accordance with an embodiment of the present invention. The system 100 includes a Picture Archiving Communication System (PACS) workstation 110... and a medical imaging device 150.", [0012]; "medical imaging device 150 is used to capture a current image or set of images of a patient.", [0014]; "The current image or set of current images captured by the medical imaging device 150 may be sent to the PACS workstation 110.", [0021]; Mahesh teaches an image processing apparatus (system 100/PACS workstation 110) with a first image acquiring unit (medical imaging device 150/PACS workstation 110) acquiring first image data (current image))
a comparison image acquiring unit configured to acquire comparison image data for performing comparison to the first image data,
(Mahesh, Fig. 1; "a historical images archive 140 is used to store images. The historical images archive 140 is accessible to the PACS workstation 110.", [0015]; " a systems manager or user creates rules for the system 100, which are stored in the rules engine 120 and may relate to parameters for selecting images from the historical images archive 140 to compare with current images captured by the medical imaging device 150", [0016]; "At step 215, the rules engine uses rules to select historical images to compare to with the current images created by the medical imaging device 150.", [0024]; Mahesh teaches the rules engine and PACS workstation as comparison image acquiring unit to acquire comparison image data as historical images for comparison to the first/current image data)
the comparison image acquiring unit being configured to acquire the comparison image data in accordance with priority with respect to a combination including the first image data and a candidate for the comparison image data.
(Mahesh, "a systems manager or user creates rules for the system 100, which are stored in the rules engine 120 and may relate to parameters for selecting images from the historical images archive 140", [0016]; " the rules previously set up by a user or system administrator may state that historical images related to a current image or set of current images captured by the medical imaging device 150 for the same patient, using the same modality, on the same body part (e.g. lung, heart, brain, etc.) are to be selected and forwarded on to the PACS workstation 110 for comparison and post-processing applications (e.g. three-dimensional subtraction)"; acquiring comparison data based on rules/parameters, which establishes a priority (e.g., selecting images with matching modality/body part over those without); MacMahon further clarifies automated prioritization based on quality; "automated identification of the “best” temporal subtraction image or images generated from the current image and a sequence of previous images, both in terms of registration accuracy and demonstration of pathologic change" [0039]; "suppressing from radiologists' view those that would contribute very little", [0038]; acquiring/selecting the comparison data based on priority (the "best" combination defined by quality/registration) relative to the first image)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to incorporate the automated evaluation and selection methods of MacMahon into the medical diagnosis system of Mahesh in order to automatically select and present the most diagnostically useful subtraction image, whether derived from contrast differences or temporal differences, to the user, thereby improving workflow efficiency and diagnostic accuracy by relieving the radiologist from the burden of reviewing multiple or inferior subtraction images. The combination of Mahesh and MacMahon also teaches other enhanced capabilities.
Regarding claims 2 and 21, the combination of Mahesh and MacMahon teaches its/their respective base claim(s).
The combination further teaches the image processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the priority is configured to be calculated based on an examination date/time of the first examination and a contrast enhancement state of the first image data.
(Mahesh, "a radiologist or other healthcare professional may use a medical imaging device 150 to capture an image (or set of images) without contrast and then capture a second image (or set of images) using contrast. Then the image without contrast and the image with contrast may be used by a three-dimensional subtraction application to create a subtracted image (or set of images) displaying the difference between the image (or set of images) without contrast and the image (or set of images) with contrast"; [0017]; to ensure a reliable and accurate clinical comparison, it is necessary that the non-contrast and contrast-enhanced imaging studies be performed within a reasonable temporal proximity (e.g., typically not exceeding one year); a significant time interval between the two scans limits their diagnostic utility by failing to account for interval pathological progression or resolution; furthermore, it is required that the contrast image meet established diagnostic quality standards to allow for a valid comparison; excessive temporal distance or poor image quality invalidates the comparative analysis for the purposes of establishing a longitudinal diagnosis, prognosis, or standard of care; Fig. 1; “Rules may be created based on a patient, time period, examination type, disease type, system type, etc.”, [0016]; " capture an image (or set of images) without contrast and then capture a second image (or set of images) using contrast. Then the image without contrast and the image with contrast may be used by a three-dimensional subtraction application to create a subtracted image (or set of images) displaying the difference between the image (or set of images) without contrast and the image (or set of images) with contrast”; [0017]; "rules... state that historical images related to a current image... for the same patient, using the same modality... are to be selected", [0021]; using a rules engine to select (acquire based on priority) images based on "time period" (examination date/time) and "examination type" (which includes contrast usage as shown in paragraph [0017]); the selection of images for subtraction based on these rules corresponds to acquiring in accordance with a priority calculated from these parameters)
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Mahesh and MacMahon teaches its/their respective base claim(s).
The combination further teaches the image processing apparatus according to claim 2, further comprising a subtraction image acquiring unit configured to acquire subtraction image data between the acquired first image data and the acquired comparison image data.
(Mahesh, Fig. 1; " The system may also include a three-dimensional subtraction application adapted to create one or more three-dimensional subtracted images by performing three-dimensional subtraction on the one or more current images and the one or more historical images”, [0006]; “a three-dimensional subtraction application 130 is used to create a three-dimensional subtracted image (or set of images) by subtracting common image data (e.g. bone) from two or more compared three-dimensional images”, [0017]; a subtraction image acquiring unit (application) is configured to acquire subtraction image data between the first image data (current images) and the comparison image data (historical images))
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Mahesh and MacMahon teaches its/their respective base claim(s).
The combination further teaches the image processing apparatus according to claim 3, wherein the subtraction image acquiring unit is configured to acquire the subtraction image data by calculating the subtraction image data through subtraction operation between the acquired first image data and the acquired comparison image data.
(Mahesh, “The three-dimensional subtraction application 130 may create an image (or set of images) based on the differences between the current image (or set of images) and the historical image (or set of images)", [0017]; " a three-dimensional subtraction application 130 is used to create a three-dimensional subtracted image (or set of images) by subtracting common image data (e.g. bone) from two or more compared three-dimensional images", [0017]; acquiring the subtraction image data by calculating it through a subtraction operation between the acquired images)
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Mahesh and MacMahon teaches its/their respective base claim(s).
The combination further teaches the image processing apparatus according to claim 2, further comprising a display control unit configured to perform processing of displaying an image pair including the first image data and the selected comparison image data on a display unit.
(Mahesh, " a Picture Archiving Communication System (PACS) workstation 110 interacts with the medical imaging device 150, the rules engine 120, the historical images archive 140, and the three-dimensional subtraction application 130, among other things, to collect and display sets of images useful to a radiologist", [0020]; "displaying the one or more three-dimensional subtracted images on a Picture Archiving Communication System (PACS) workstation", [0007]; "A user of the PACS workstation 110 may retrieve images stored in the historical images archive 140 to view or perform post-processing on selected images.", [0015]; a display unit (PACS workstation) performs processing of displaying sets of images that includes the current and selected historical images)
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Mahesh and MacMahon teaches its/their respective base claim(s).
The combination further teaches the image processing apparatus according to claim 12, wherein the display control unit is configured to cause the display unit to display the first image data and the comparison image data so as to be comparable to each other.
(Mahesh, “three-dimensional subtraction allows a radiologist or other practitioner to view the differences between two or more images”, [0004]; viewing differences between two images requires the images to be presented in a manner enabling comparison; “A three-dimensional image subtraction application does this by aligning the images to be compared using image registration techniques”, [0004]; “images to be compared” are expressly contemplated; aligning for comparison supports the “comparable to each other” display purpose)
Regarding claims 19, 24 and 27, Mahesh teaches an image processing method comprising the steps of:
acquiring first image data which is image data obtained by imaging a subject by a first examination;
(Mahesh, Figs. 1-2; "receiving one or more current medical images", [0007]; "capture a current image or set of images of a patient", [0014]; "receiving at least one current medical image", [claim 9]; Mahesh discloses a method for medical diagnosis comprising receiving current images (first image data) captured by a medical imaging device (first examination))
acquiring, as first comparison image data, image data obtained by imaging the subject in a contrast condition different from a contrast condition of the first image data in the first examination, and
(Mahesh, Fig. 1; "capture an image (or set of images) without contrast and then capture a second image (or set of images) using contrast", [0017]; acquiring images in different contrast conditions (without contrast vs. using contrast) during an examination)
acquiring, as second comparison image data, image data obtained by imaging the subject by a second examination performed at an examination date different from an examination date of the first examination;
(Mahesh, Fig. 1; "historical images archive 140 is used to store images.", [0015]; "storing the one or more current images and/or one or more historical images.", [0006]; "selecting one or more historical images.", [0007]; "historical images related to a current image or set of current images captured by the medical imaging device 150 for the same patient", [0016]; selecting historical images (second comparison image data from a different date) to compare with the current image)
acquiring first subtraction image data representing subtraction between the first image data and the first comparison image data and second subtraction image data representing subtraction between the first image data and the second comparison image data;
(Mahesh, Fig. 1; "create an image (or set of images) based on the differences between the current image (or set of images) and the historical image (or set of images) ... image without contrast and the image with contrast may be used by a three-dimensional subtraction application to create a subtracted image (or set of images) displaying the difference between the image (or set of images) without contrast and the image (or set of images) with contrast.", [0017]; creating subtraction images based on contrast differences (first subtraction image data) and historical differences (second subtraction image data))
Mahesh does not expressly disclose but MacMahon teaches:
performing evaluation of each of the first subtraction image data and the second subtraction image data; and
(MacMahon, Figs. 8-9; "automated identification of the “best” temporal subtraction image or images generated from the current image and a sequence of previous images, both in terms of registration accuracy and demonstration of pathologic change", [0039]; " identify temporal subtraction images that demonstrate registration accuracy that exceed some predetermined level", [0038]; "detect regions of clinical significance.", [0036]; evaluating generated subtraction images to determine their quality, such as registration accuracy or the presence of pathology)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to incorporate the automated evaluation and selection methods of MacMahon into the medical diagnosis system of Mahesh in order to automatically select and present the most diagnostically useful subtraction image, whether derived from contrast differences or temporal differences, to the user, thereby improving workflow efficiency and diagnostic accuracy by relieving the radiologist from the burden of reviewing multiple or inferior subtraction images. The combination of Mahesh and MacMahon also teaches other enhanced capabilities.
The combination of Mahesh and MacMahon further teaches:
selecting subtraction image data having a better result of the evaluation from the first subtraction image data and the second subtraction image data.
(MacMahon, Figs. 8-9; "suppressing from radiologists' view those that would contribute very little to the radiologists' decision-making process.", [0038]; " The “best” temporal subtraction image or images may be displayed ... automated identification of the “best” temporal subtraction image or images", [0039]; selecting and displaying the "best" subtraction images based on the evaluation while suppressing those with inferior results; Combining Mahesh (which generates different types of subtraction images) with MacMahon (which selects the best subtraction image) renders this step obvious)
Claim(s) 7, 11, 16-17 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mahesh (US20070071294) in view of MacMahon et al (US20050111718) and further in view of Becker et al (US20130039552).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Mahesh and MacMahon teaches its/their respective base claim(s).
The combination does not expressly disclose but Becker teaches the image processing apparatus according to claim 2, further comprising a priority setting unit configured to set the priority.
(Becker, "In an embodiment, the PAPVR system can assign a priority value to an image based on the degree that the image matches one or more images from one or more patients with a known condition", [0059]; "In some embodiments, the PAPVR system can flag some images as having a higher priority relative to other images", [0055]; a system is configured to set and assign a priority to the images)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to incorporate the method of handling priority of Becker into the medical diagnosis system of Mahesh in order to assign priority values to candidate images based on how well they match reference images of known conditions, and to subsequently use those priority values to acquire and provide only the most relevant, high-priority images for a physician's review. The combination of Mahesh, MacMahon and Becker also teaches other enhanced capabilities.
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Mahesh, MacMahon and Becker teaches its/their respective base claim(s).
The combination further teaches the image processing apparatus according to claim 7, wherein the priority setting unit is configured to set the priority based on an examination object.
(Mahesh, "using the same modality, on the same body part (e.g. lung, heart, brain, etc.) are to be selected and forwarded on to the PACS workstation 110 for comparison”, [0016]; uses exam attributes like body part as part of its rules for selecting images for comparison; under BRI, “examination object” reasonably reads on the anatomical/body-part object of the examination; combined with Becker’s disclosure of setting priority ([0016]), this supports priority setting based on an examination object; Mahesh, “Rules may be created based on a patient, time period, examination type, disease type, system type, etc.”, [0016]; configuring behavior based on exam-related object/type)
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Mahesh and MacMahon teaches its/their respective base claim(s).
The combination of Mahesh, MacMahon and Becker further teaches the image processing apparatus according to claim 12, wherein the display control unit is configured to cause the display unit to display information corresponding to the priority.
(Becker, Fig. 7; “a column 720 showing the priority associated with each case”, [0062]; displaying information corresponding to priority; Fig. 8; “The interactive report window 815 can include other information, such as whether the priority associated with the patient's case”, [0066]; displaying priority information)
Regarding claims 17 and 22, the combination of Mahesh and MacMahon teaches its/their respective base claim(s).
The combination of Mahesh, MacMahon and Becker further teaches the image processing apparatus according to claim 1, further comprising a priority acquiring unit configured to acquire priority with respect to a combination including each of candidates for first image data and each of candidates for comparison image data, the comparison image data being image data for performing comparison to the first image data,
(Becker, "In an embodiment, the PAPVR system can assign a priority value to an image based on the degree that the image matches one or more images from one or more patients with a known condition ... Such matching can be accomplished by comparing the image under review by the PAPVR system to images from an image database.", [0059]; Becker teaches a system configured to assign a priority value to an image by comparing the candidate image under review (first image data) to candidate images from an image database (comparison image data), thus acquiring priority with respect to a combination thereof)
wherein the first image acquiring unit configured to acquire the first image data from the candidates for the first image data, in accordance with the priority.
(Becker, " For example, the user can request that the system provide only high priority images for review ... the user can request that the PAPVR system provide images having a priority numerical value above a certain value or within a certain range. In some embodiments, the user can specify the minimum (cut-off) priority", [0057]; acquiring and providing the first image data from the candidate images in accordance with the established priority)
Claim(s) 18, 23 and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mahesh (US20070071294) in view of MacMahon et al (US20050111718) and further in view of Sorenson et al (US20190392943).
Regarding claims 18, 23 and 26, Mahesh teaches an image processing apparatus comprising:
a first image acquiring unit configured to acquire first image data which is image data obtained by imaging a subject by a first examination; and
a comparison image acquiring unit configured to acquire comparison image data for performing comparison to the first image data,
(Mahesh, MacMahon, see comments on claim 24; Mahesh, Fig. 1; " The system 100 includes a Picture Archiving Communication System (PACS) workstation 110, ..., and a medical imaging device 150"; "medical imaging device 150 is used to capture a current image", [0014]; "a historical images archive 140 is used to store images. The historical images archive 140 is accessible to the PACS workstation 110", [0015]; PACS workstation 110 interacts with the historical images archive 140; the apparatus has acquisition units for acquiring current (first) and historical (comparison) images)
wherein the comparison image acquiring unit is configured to perform at least any one of:
1st acquiring comparison image data including:
attempt to acquire, as the comparison image data, second image data which is image data obtained by imaging the subject by a second examination which is a past examination performed before the first examination; and
acquire, when the second image data has failed to be acquired, as the comparison image data, third image data which is image data different in contrast enhancement state from the first image data, and
(Mahesh, " Then the current image of the tumor may be used with a historical image of the tumor in a three-dimensional subtraction application 130. The three-dimensional subtraction application 130 may create an image (or set of images) based on the differences between the current image (or set of images) and the historical image (or set of images) ... capture an image (or set of images) without contrast and then capture a second image (or set of images) using contrast. Then the image without contrast and the image with contrast may be used by a three-dimensional subtraction application to create a subtracted image (or set of images) displaying the difference between the image (or set of images) without contrast and the image (or set of images) with contrast”, [0017]; " a systems manager or user creates rules for the system 100, which are stored in the rules engine 120 and may relate to parameters for selecting images from the historical images archive 140 to compare with current images captured by the medical imaging device 150, ... Rules may be predefined and/or created dynamically", [0016]; Mahesh teaches the capability to perform both historical subtraction (using second image data) and contrast subtraction (using third image data) and uses a rules engine to select images; Sorenson, “These real-time clinical images and content sets that need interpretation are often imperfect ... It may also happen due to a lack of availability of prior imaging studies ... and influences which engines, ensembles and operations are run”, [0045]; "to force the engine of engines to optimize its work", [0036]; a system detects the "lack of availability of prior imaging studies" (failure to acquire second image data) and adapts the operations/engines run (acquiring/processing alternative data, such as the contrast data available in the current study as taught by Mahesh's contrast subtraction capability) to ensure a result)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to incorporate the adaptive workflow management and data availability logic of Sorenson into the medical diagnosis system of Mahesh in order to ensure diagnostic continuity by automatically triggering an alternative acquisition mode, such as acquiring a different contrast state image from the current examination, when the preferred historical comparison image data is unavailable or fails to meet quality standards. The combination of Mahesh, MacMahon and Sorenson also teaches other enhanced capabilities.
The combination of Mahesh, MacMahon and Sorenson further teaches:
2nd acquiring comparison image data including:
attempt to acquire, as the comparison image data, second image data which is image data different in contrast enhancement state from the first image data; and
acquire, when the second image data has failed to be acquired, as the comparison image data, third image data which is image data obtained by imaging the subject by a third examination which is a past examination performed before the first examination.
(Mahesh, Sorenson, see comments above; the combination of Mahesh's "rules engine" ([0016]) capable of selecting between historical/contrast images and Sorenson's "engine of engines" ([0035 - 0037]) that adapts workflow based on data availability (e.g., missing priors or poor quality) teaches configuring the system to prioritize one type and fallback to the other)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 5-6 is/are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening Claim(s).
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim(s) 5 recite(s) limitation(s) related to selection between multiple distinct subtraction methods based on the specific characteristics of acquired image data. There are no explicit teachings to the above limitation(s) found in the prior art cited in this office action and from the prior art search.
Claim(s) 6 depends on claim 5.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JIANXUN YANG whose telephone number is (571)272-9874. The examiner can normally be reached on MON-FRI: 8AM-5PM Pacific Time.
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, Amandeep Saini can be reached on (571)272-3382. 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.
/JIANXUN YANG/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2662 4/18/2026