DETAILED ACTION
Contents
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 2
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 2
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 3
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 5
Conclusion 12
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This action is responsive to applicant’s claim set received on 5/27/24. Claims 1-15 are currently pending.
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 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter as follows. Claims 1 and 15 are direct to an abstract idea of collection medical information, analyzing the information of a subject and calculate reliability, thereafter determine user correction, accepting the correction and displaying the result. The claims do not appear to recite a technological improvement to image recognition, or reliability calculation, nor is there significantly more recited within the body of the claim. For claims 2-14, the same applies wherein the claims recite an abstract idea, without reciting a specific technological improvement or significantly more to make the claims subject matter eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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 - (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.(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.
Claims 1-4, 6, 11, 13, 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Paik et al (WO 2021/067624 A1). Regarding claim 1, Paik discloses a medical image processing apparatus comprising: one or more processors configured to (see 0018, 0019, 0006): acquire at least one medical image (see 0018, 0006); execute recognition processing on the medical image to recognize at least one specific photographic subject, the type of the specific photographic subject being at least one of a lesion, a treatment tool, or a site to be observed (see 0010, 0107); calculate a reliability level of a recognition result of the specific photographic subject (see 0107, 0121); determine, based on the reliability level, an acceptance mode for accepting a correction to the recognition result (see 0285, 0121); accept the correction to the recognition result in the determined acceptance mode (see 0148, 0257); and display the recognition result that is corrected (see 0009, 0141, 0018).
Regarding claims 2-4, Paik discloses a first mode for accepting a correction to the recognition result from a user and automatically confirming the correction to the recognition result in a case where a predetermined condition is satisfied (see 0121);
first mode displays, as options, candidate corrections to the recognition result, and allows the user to select a correction to the recognition result from the candidate corrections (see 0107, 0121);
a second mode for confirming the recognition result without accepting a correction to the recognition result from the user (see 0257).
Regarding claim 6, Paik discloses a third mode for accepting a correction to the recognition result from the user and manually confirming the recognition result (see 0257).
Regarding claim 11, 13, Paik discloses execute the recognition processing on the medical image for the plurality of mutually different specific photographic subjects; acquire each of the recognition results; and calculate the reliability level for each of the recognition results (see 0119, 0121);
control acceptance of the correction and a display style of a screen in a stepwise manner, based on the reliability level (see 147-0148, 0121).
Regarding claim 15, Paik discloses a method that implements the limitations of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1).
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.
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 claimedinvention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paik et al (WO 2021/067624 A1) in view of Guo et al (US 2019/0073447 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Paik teaches all elements as mentioned above in claim 1. Paik does not teach expressly determine the acceptance mode to be the first mode in a case where the reliability level is less than a first threshold value; and determine the acceptance mode to be the second mode in a case where the reliability level is greater than or equal to the first threshold value.
Guo, in the same field of endeavor, teaches determine the acceptance mode to be the first mode in a case where the reliability level is less than a first threshold value; and determine the acceptance mode to be the second mode in a case where the reliability level is greater than or equal to the first threshold value (see 00024, 0016, 0028, 0115, 00002).
It would have been obvious (before the effective filing date of the claimed invention) or (at the time the invention was made) to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Paik to utilize the cited limitations as suggested by Guo. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to provide accurate diagnosis faster than before (see 0010). Furthermore, the prior art collectively includes each element claimed (though not all in the same reference), and one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements in the manner explained above using known engineering design, interface and/or programming techniques, without changing a “fundamental” operating principle of Paik, while the teaching of Guo continues to perform the same function as originally taught prior to being combined, in order to produce the repeatable and predictable result. It is for at least the aforementioned reasons that the examiner has reached a conclusion of obviousness with respect to the claim in question.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paik et al (WO 2021/067624 A1) in view of Edgar et al (US 2021/0035015 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Paik teaches all elements as mentioned above in claim 6. Paik does not teach expressly determine the acceptance mode to be the first mode in a case where the reliability level is greater than or equal to a second threshold value; and determine the acceptance mode to be the third mode in a case where the reliability level is less than the second threshold value..
Edgar, in the same field of endeavor, teaches determine the acceptance mode to be the first mode in a case where the reliability level is greater than or equal to a second threshold value; and determine the acceptance mode to be the third mode in a case where the reliability level is less than the second threshold value (see 0099, 0088, 0067, 0031, 0056, 0055, 0005, 0030).
It would have been obvious (before the effective filing date of the claimed invention) or (at the time the invention was made) to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Paik to utilize the cited limitations as suggested by Edgar. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to provide efficiency and accuracy in annotation (see 0030). Furthermore, the prior art collectively includes each element claimed (though not all in the same reference), and one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements in the manner explained above using known engineering design, interface and/or programming techniques, without changing a “fundamental” operating principle of Paik, while the teaching of Edgar continues to perform the same function as originally taught prior to being combined, in order to produce the repeatable and predictable result. It is for at least the aforementioned reasons that the examiner has reached a conclusion of obviousness with respect to the claim in question.
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paik et al (WO 2021/067624 A1) in view of Guo et al (GE: “Real-time automated diagnosis of precancerous lesions and early esophageal squamous cell carcinoma using a deep learning model(with videos)”). Guo et al (GE: “Real-time automated diagnosis of precancerous lesions and early esophageal squamous cell carcinoma using a deep learning model(with videos)”) will be referred to from hereon as Guo 2.
Regarding claims 8-9, Paik teaches all elements as mentioned above in claim 1. Paik does not teach expressly acquire time-series images that are the medical images in time series; perform the recognition processing for each of the medical images constituting the time-series images; and calculate the reliability level, based on a number of recognitions of the specific photographic subject with respect to a number of the medical images constituting the time-series images; calculate the reliability level, based on a number of recognitions of a photographic subject different from the specific photographic subject with respect to the number of medical images constituting the time-series images.
Guo 2, in the same field of endeavor, teaches acquire time-series images that are the medical images in time series; perform the recognition processing for each of the medical images constituting the time-series images; and calculate the reliability level, based on a number of recognitions of the specific photographic subject with respect to a number of the medical images constituting the time-series images (see methods, training, statistical sections); calculate the reliability level, based on a number of recognitions of a photographic subject different from the specific photographic subject with respect to the number of medical images constituting the time-series images (see statistical section).
It would have been obvious (before the effective filing date of the claimed invention) or (at the time the invention was made) to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Paik to utilize the cited limitations as suggested by Guo 2. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to assist in diagnosing lesions (see conclusion). Furthermore, the prior art collectively includes each element claimed (though not all in the same reference), and one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements in the manner explained above using known engineering design, interface and/or programming techniques, without changing a “fundamental” operating principle of Paik, while the teaching of Guo 2 continues to perform the same function as originally taught prior to being combined, in order to produce the repeatable and predictable result. It is for at least the aforementioned reasons that the examiner has reached a conclusion of obviousness with respect to the claim in question.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paik et al (WO 2021/067624 A1) in view of Yan et al (IEEE: “Learning From Multiple Datasets With Heterogeneous and Partial Labels for Universal Lesion Detection in CT”).
Regarding claim 10, Paik teaches all elements as mentioned above in claim 1. Paik does not teach expressly execute, in the recognition processing, first recognition processing for recognizing the specific photographic subject and second recognition processing for recognizing a photographic subject different from the specific photographic subject; acquire a first recognition result by the first recognition processing; acquire a second recognition result by the second recognition processing; check a correspondence between the first recognition result and the second recognition result; and calculate a first reliability level of the first recognition result and a second reliability level of the second recognition result.
Yan, in the same field of endeavor, teaches execute, in the recognition processing, first recognition processing for recognizing the specific photographic subject and second recognition processing for recognizing a photographic subject different from the specific photographic subject (see section IV); acquire a first recognition result by the first recognition processing (see section IV); acquire a second recognition result by the second recognition processing (see section IV); check a correspondence between the first recognition result and the second recognition result (see section IV); and calculate a first reliability level of the first recognition result and a second reliability level of the second recognition result (see section IV).
It would have been obvious (before the effective filing date of the claimed invention) or (at the time the invention was made) to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Paik to utilize the cited limitations as suggested by Yan. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to enable an effective lesion detection framework (see abstract). Furthermore, the prior art collectively includes each element claimed (though not all in the same reference), and one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements in the manner explained above using known engineering design, interface and/or programming techniques, without changing a “fundamental” operating principle of Paik, while the teaching of Yan continues to perform the same function as originally taught prior to being combined, in order to produce the repeatable and predictable result. It is for at least the aforementioned reasons that the examiner has reached a conclusion of obviousness with respect to the claim in question.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paik et al (WO 2021/067624 A1) in view of Lyman et al (US 2020/0111562 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Paik teaches all elements as mentioned above in claim 1. Paik does not teach expressly set at least one of a first threshold value of the reliability level or a second threshold value lower than the first threshold value for each type of the specific photographic subject; and determine the acceptance mode, based on the reliability level for at least one of the first threshold value or the second threshold value.
Lyman, in the same field of endeavor, teaches set at least one of a first threshold value of the reliability level or a second threshold value lower than the first threshold value for each type of the specific photographic subject; and determine the acceptance mode, based on the reliability level for at least one of the first threshold value or the second threshold value (see 0057, 0058, 00116, 0155, 0116, 0117, 0118).
It would have been obvious (before the effective filing date of the claimed invention) or (at the time the invention was made) to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Paik to utilize the cited limitations as suggested by Lyman. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to enable more effective performance by ranking based on accuracy (see 0099). Furthermore, the prior art collectively includes each element claimed (though not all in the same reference), and one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements in the manner explained above using known engineering design, interface and/or programming techniques, without changing a “fundamental” operating principle of Paik, while the teaching of Lyman continues to perform the same function as originally taught prior to being combined, in order to produce the repeatable and predictable result. It is for at least the aforementioned reasons that the examiner has reached a conclusion of obviousness with respect to the claim in question.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paik et al (WO 2021/067624 A1) in view of Barkan et al (US 2021/0183499 A1).
Regarding claim 14, Paik teaches all elements as mentioned above in claim 1. Paik does not teach expressly accept a button operation, a foot pedal operation, and a voice input for the correction..
Barkan, in the same field of endeavor, teaches accept a button operation, a foot pedal operation, and a voice input for the correction (see 0013, 0034-0035, 0040, 0008, 0013).
It would have been obvious (before the effective filing date of the claimed invention) or (at the time the invention was made) to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Paik to utilize the cited limitations as suggested by Barkan. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to enable better performance of the system (see 0013). Furthermore, the prior art collectively includes each element claimed (though not all in the same reference), and one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements in the manner explained above using known engineering design, interface and/or programming techniques, without changing a “fundamental” operating principle of Paik, while the teaching of Barkan continues to perform the same function as originally taught prior to being combined, in order to produce the repeatable and predictable result. It is for at least the aforementioned reasons that the examiner has reached a conclusion of obviousness with respect to the claim in question.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDWARD PARK. The examiner’s contact information is as follows:
Telephone: (571)270-1576 | Fax: 571.270.2576 | Edward.Park@uspto.gov
For email communications, please notate MPEP 502.03, which outlines procedures pertaining to communications via the internet and authorization. A sample authorization form is cited within MPEP 502.03, section II.
The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9-6 CST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Andrew Moyer, can be reached on (571) 272-9523. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/EDWARD PARK/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2666
Prosecution Insights