DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of the Claims
The office action is in response to the claims filed on December 7, 2025 for the application filed on June 18, 2024, which is a bypass continuation of International Application No. PCT/JP2022/001461 filed on January 17, 2022. Claims 1 – 2, 5 – 11, 13 – 15, 17, and 19 – 22 are currently pending and have been examined as discussed below.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Japan on January 17, 2022. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the PCT/JP2022/001461 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
When a claim to priority and the certified copy of the foreign application are received while the application is pending before the examiner, the examiner should review the certified copy to see that it contains no obvious formal defects and that it corresponds in number, date and country to the application identified in the application data sheet for an application filed on or after September 16, 2012, or oath or declaration or application data sheet for an application filed prior to September 16, 2012. See MPEP 215(I).
Applicant cannot rely upon the certified copy of the foreign priority application to overcome the rejections unless a translation of said application has not been made of record in accordance with 37 CFR 1.55. When an English language translation of a non-English language application is required, the translation must be that of the certified copy (of the foreign application as filed) submitted together with a statement that the translation of the certified copy is accurate. See MPEP 215 and 216.
Accordingly, the Office requires that English language translation of the non-English language PCT application be filed, with the translations being that of the certified copy of the PCT application as filed and submitted together with a statement that the translation of the associated certified copy is accurate.
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 – 2, 5 – 11, 13 – 15, 17, and 19 – 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Examiners should determine whether a claim satisfies the criteria for subject matter eligibility by evaluating the claim in accordance with the flowchart in MPEP 2016(III).
Pursuant to the flowchart, Step 1 relates to the statutory categories and ensures that the first criterion is met by confirming that the claim falls within one of the four statutory categories of invention. Id. If the claim as a whole falls within one or more statutory categories (Step 1: YES), the claim must be further analyzed to determine whether it qualifies as eligible at Pathway A or requires further analysis at Step 2A to determine if the claim is directed to a judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.03(II).
For purposes of efficiency in examination, examiners may use a streamlined eligibility analysis (Pathway A) when the eligibility of the claim is self-evident, e.g., because the claim clearly improves a technology or computer functionality. See MPEP 2016.06. However, if there is doubt as to whether the applicant is effectively seeking coverage for a judicial exception itself, the full eligibility analysis (the Alice/Mayo test described in MPEP 2106(III)) should be conducted to determine whether the claim integrates the judicial exception into a practical application or recites significantly more than the judicial exception. Id. Of particular interest, claims that could have been found eligible at Pathway A (streamlined analysis), but are subjected to further analysis at Steps 2A or Step 2B, will ultimately be found eligible at Pathways B or C. See MPEP 2016(III). Thus, if the examiner is uncertain about whether a streamlined analysis is appropriate, the examiner is encouraged to conduct a full eligibility analysis. Id.
Step 2, which is the Supreme Court’s Alice/Mayo test, is a two-part test to identify claims that are directed to a judicial exception (Step 2A) and to then evaluate if additional elements of the claim provide an inventive concept (Step 2B) (also called "significantly more" than the recited judicial exception). See MPEP 2106(III).
Eligibility Step 1:
Under Step 1 of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, it must be determined whether each claim as a whole falls within one of the statutory categories of invention (i.e., a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). See MPEP 2106.03. In the instant application, claims 1 – 2, 5 – 11, 13 – 14, and 19 – 20 are directed to a system (i.e., a machine); claims 15 and 21 are directed to a method (i.e., a process); and claims 17 and 22 are directed to an apparatus (i.e., a machine).
While each one of claims 1 – 2, 5 – 11, 13 – 15, 17, and 19 – 22 appears to fall within one or more statutory categories of invention, the Office has determined that the full eligibility analysis is required because there is doubt as to whether the applicant is effectively seeking coverage for a judicial exception itself. The eligibility of each claim is not self-evident at least because each claim as a whole did not appear to clearly improve a technology or computer functionality. To the contrary, each claim as a whole appeared to merely apply one or more judicial exceptions on a computer.
Accordingly, it has been determined that each one of claims 1 – 2, 5 – 11, 13 – 15, 17, and 19 – 22 as a whole falls within one or more statutory categories under Step 1, and the Office proceeds with the full eligibility analysis (the Alice/Mayo test described in MPEP 2106(III)) as discussed below.
Eligibility Step 2A, Prong One:
Under Step 2A, Prong One of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, it must be determined whether each claim is directed to one or more of the judicial exceptions (i.e., an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon). See MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1). After evaluation, it has been determined that claims 1 – 2, 5 – 11, 13 – 15, 17, and 19 – 22 are directed to judicial exceptions because claims 1 – 2, 5 – 11, 13 – 15, 17, and 19 – 22 recite abstract ideas. (The Office will not determine that a claim is not directed to a judicial exception under Step 2A, Prong One for the mere reason that claim further recites one or more additional elements beyond the judicial exception.)
Claims 1, 15, and 17 are determined to be directed to a judicial exception including an abstract ideas falling in the “mental process” grouping). Representative claim 1 recites an abstract idea as the limitations identified in bold as:
A medical support system comprising:
one or more processors comprising hardware, wherein the one or more processors are configured to:
acquire a plurality of endoscopic images captured in an endoscopic examination and pieces of additional information that express features of the plurality of endoscopic images, the pieces of additional information being associated with the plurality of endoscopic images;
acquire a lesion image existence information indicating whether or not a lesion has been detected by computer-aided diagnosis in at least one of the plurality of endoscopic image;
in response to the lesion image existence information indicating that a lesion has been detected, automatically, in a first mode, create a first report including at least one endoscopic image of the plurality of endoscopic images in which a lesion has been detected; and
in response to the lesion image existence information indicating that the lesion has not been detected,
automatically, in the second mode, select a predetermined number of endoscopic images of the plurality of endoscopic images, the predetermined number of the plurality of endoscopic images being associated with features having a highest priority from a priority order of features of the plurality of endoscopic images; and
automatically create a report including the predetermined number of endoscopic images selected and excluding the remainder of the plurality of endoscopic images.
Claim 1 recites the combination of limitations identified as “indicating whether or not a lesion has been detected … in at least one of the plurality of endoscopic image,” “acquire a lesion image existence information indicating whether or not a lesion has been detected by … diagnosis in at least one of the plurality of endoscopic image,” “in response to the lesion image existence information indicating that a lesion has been detected, … create a first report including at least one endoscopic image of the plurality of endoscopic images in which a lesion has been detected,” “in response to the lesion image existence information indicating that the lesion has not been detected, … select a predetermined number of endoscopic images of the plurality of endoscopic images, the predetermined number of the plurality of endoscopic images being associated with features having a highest priority from a priority order of features of the plurality of endoscopic images,” and “create a report including the predetermined number of endoscopic images selected and excluding the remainder of the plurality of endoscopic images.” A broadest reasonable interpretation of this combination amounts to determining whether endoscopic images include lesions or other features having priority. This activity may be practically performed in the human mind using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion, and thus represents an abstract idea falling in the “mental process” grouping. With the exception of generic computer-implemented steps, there is nothing in each of claims 1, 15, and 17 themselves that forecloses them from being performed by a human, mentally or with tools such as pen and paper. Thus, this activity is an abstract idea in the "mental process" grouping.
Accordingly, claim 1, 15, and 17 are directed to judicial exceptions under Step 2A, Prong One.
Dependent claims 2, 5 – 11, 13 – 14, and 19 – 22 are directed to one or more judicial exceptions (i.e., abstract idea exceptions) under Step 2A, Prong One of the full eligibility analysis as follows:
Claims 2, 5 – 11, 13 – 14, and 19 – 22 recite the limitations “create the report including information indicating that there is no lesion, and the predetermined number of endoscopic images selected” in claim 2, “set the priority order for each examination item based on input from a user” in claim 5 “select the predetermined number of endoscopic images based on the priority order set for the organ” in claim 6, “select the predetermined number of endoscopic images based on the priority order set for the site of the organ,” in claim 7, “select, in the second mode, the predetermined number of endoscopic images from among the plurality of endoscopic images including the organ or the site based on the priority order set for the order of imaging” in claim 8, “as the priority order for the order of imaging, set any one of a first priority criterion for preferentially selecting an endoscopic image of the plurality of endoscopic images captured at an initial point in time, a second priority criterion for preferentially selecting an endoscopic image of the plurality of endoscopic images captured at an intermediate point in time, and a third priority criterion for preferentially selecting an endoscopic image of the plurality of endoscopic images captured at a final point in time” in claim 9, “select the predetermined number of endoscopic images from the two or more endoscopic images including the organ based on the priority order set for a site of the organ” in claim 10, “select the predetermined number of endoscopic images based on the priority order set for a combination of an organ and a site” in claim 11, “select the predetermined number of endoscopic images for upper endoscopy based on the third priority criterion; and the predetermined number of endoscopic images for lower endoscopy based on the second priority criterion,” in claim 13, “not select endoscopic images in which the additional information includes information indicating that the endoscopic images have not been properly captured,” in claim 14, “arrange the predetermined number of endoscopic images in predetermined positions in the report” in claim 19, and “set … the priority order of the features of the plurality of endoscopic images” in claims 20 – 22. These limitations merely define the activity of determining whether endoscopic images include lesions or other features of priority. For that reason, the limitations may be practically performed in the human mind using observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinions. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Thus, claims 2, 5 – 11, 13 – 14, and 19 – 22 recite an abstract idea in the "mental process" grouping.
Therefore, for at least these reasons, claims 2, 5 – 11, 13 – 14, and 19 – 22 recite judicial exceptions under Step 2A, Prong Two.
Eligibility Step 2A, Prong Two:
Under Step 2A, Prong Two of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, it must be determined whether the claims recite any additional limitations individually or in combination that integrate a judicial exception (i.e., the identified abstract ideas) into a practical application. After evaluation, it has been determined that claims 1 – 2, 5 – 11, 13 – 15, 17, and 19 – 22 do not recite any additional elements individually or in combination that integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Claims 1, 15, and 17 recite additional limitations beyond the judicial exceptions. Representative claim 1 recites an abstract idea as the limitations identified in bold as:
A medical support system comprising:
one or more processors comprising hardware, wherein the one or more processors are configured to:
acquire a plurality of endoscopic images captured in an endoscopic examination and pieces of additional information that express features of the plurality of endoscopic images, the pieces of additional information being associated with the plurality of endoscopic images;
acquire a lesion image existence information indicating whether or not a lesion has been detected by computer-aided diagnosis in at least one of the plurality of endoscopic image;
in response to the lesion image existence information indicating that a lesion has been detected, automatically, in a first mode, create a first report including at least one endoscopic image of the plurality of endoscopic images in which a lesion has been detected; and
in response to the lesion image existence information indicating that the lesion has not been detected,
automatically, in the second mode, select a predetermined number of endoscopic images of the plurality of endoscopic images, the predetermined number of the plurality of endoscopic images being associated with features having a highest priority from a priority order of features of the plurality of endoscopic images; and
automatically create a report including the predetermined number of endoscopic images selected and excluding the remainder of the plurality of endoscopic images.
Claim 17 further recites the limitations identified in bold as:
A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a program that causes a computer to at least perform:
Regarding the consideration under MPEP 2106.05(a), claims 1, 15, and 17 recite the additional limitations identified in bold as “a medical support system,” “one or more processors comprising hardware,” “acquire a plurality of endoscopic images captured in an endoscopic examination and pieces of additional information that express features of the plurality of endoscopic images, the pieces of additional information being associated with the plurality of endoscopic images,” “computer-aided,” “automatically, in a first mode,” “automatically, in the second mode,” and “a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a program that causes a computer to at least perform.” Each of these elements is an additional limitation beyond the judicial exception (i.e., the mental process of determining whether endoscopic images include lesions or other features of priority). At best, looking at the combination of all additional elements and the judicial exception, each claim as a whole amounts to a general purpose computer (i.e., the medical support system having one or more processors comprising hardware and the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a program) used for necessary data gathering (i.e., “acquire a plurality of endoscopic images captured in an endoscopic examination and pieces of additional information that express features of the plurality of endoscopic images, the pieces of additional information being associated with the plurality of endoscopic images”) and data output (i.e., creating reports).
MPEP 2106.05(a) states: “In determining patent eligibility, examiners should consider whether the claim ‘purport(s) to improve the functioning of the computer itself’ or ‘any other technology or technical field.’… [A]n improvement in the abstract idea itself is not an improvement in technology.” Furthermore, MPEP 2106.05(a)(II) states: “Merely adding generic computer components to perform the method is not sufficient.” In the instant application, claim 1 as a whole does not improve the functioning of the processors and/or the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium; nor does the claim as a whole improve any other technology or technical field. The processors and the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium are general purpose computer components added post-hoc to the abstract idea of determining whether endoscopic images include lesions or other features of priority. The claim as a whole improves exclusively upon the abstract idea itself by using conventional and generic computer technology for automating the manual process of determining whether endoscopic images include lesions or other features of priority. See MPEP 2106.05(a). The claim as a whole represents mere instructions to apply the abstract idea to conventional and generic computer technology recited at a high level of generality. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Regarding the consideration under MPEP 2106.05(g), the limitation of “acquire a plurality of endoscopic images captured in an endoscopic examination and pieces of additional information that express features of the plurality of endoscopic images, the pieces of additional information being associated with the plurality of endoscopic images” is determined to not add no more than insignificant extra-solution activities to the judicial exception. This limitation represents the well-known pre-solution activity of necessary data gathering because the limitation represents an activity incidental to the primary process of the claim as a whole (i.e., determining whether endoscopic images include lesions or other features of priority) and thus the limitation is merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Regarding the consideration under MPEP 2106.05(h), the additional limitations, individually or in combination, also amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply the judicial exception. In the instant application, the additional limitations (i.e., the one or more processors and the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium) do no more than link the abstract idea (i.e., of determining whether endoscopic images include lesions or other features of priority) to the particular technological environment of artificial intelligence. Thus, the additional limitations fail to add an inventive concept to the claims.
Accordingly, in view of these considerations, the Office has determined that each one of claims 1, 15, and 17 as a whole does not integrate the abstract idea exception into a practical application under Step 2A, Prong Two, and thus each claim as a whole is directed to a judicial exception under Step 2A.
Dependent claims 2, 5 – 11, 13 – 14, and 19 – 22 present additional information in tandem with further details regarding elements from an associated one of independent claims 1, 15, and 17 and are therefore directed to one or more abstract ideas for similar reasons as given Under Step 2A, Prong One above. Claims 2, 5 – 11, 13 – 14, and 19 – 22 do not recite any additional limitations beyond a judicial exception, and thus each of claims 2, 5 – 11, 13 – 14, and 19 – 22 as a whole does not recite an additional limitation that integrates the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A, Prong Two.
Eligibility Step 2B:
Regarding independent claims 1, 15, and 17, the Office carries over its identification of the additional elements (and combinations thereof) from Step 2A, Prong Two so as to apply the same additional elements in Step 2B. See MPEP 2106.05(II). The Office further carries over its conclusions from the considerations discussed in MPEP 2106.05(a) through (c), (e) through (h) in Step 2A, Prong Two so as to apply the same considerations in Step 2B.
Under Step 2B of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, it must be determined whether the claim provides an inventive concept by determining if the claims include additional elements or a combination of elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. After evaluation, there is no indication that an additional element or combination of elements are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, each claim as a whole does not provide an improvement to technology or technical field under MPEP 2106.05(a). The additional limitations amount to mere instructions to apply an abstract idea under MPEP 2106.05(f) and/or necessary data gathering and/or outputting under MPEP 2106.05(g). Each claim as a whole recites the processors and the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium at a high level of generality, with their functions claimed in a merely generic manner such that each claim as a whole represents the well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions of a computer system (i.e., having the processors and the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium) for receiving input of endoscopic image data and outputting as estimation result data D2 (i.e., a lesion name, a lesion location, and a probability score for an image feature) of the endoscopic image represented by endoscopic image data D1. Evidence that receiving input of endoscopic image data and outputting estimation result data D2 (i.e., a lesion name, a lesion location, and a probability score for an image feature) of the endoscopic image represented by endoscopic image data D1is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function is provided by Hirasawa (U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0337537 A1).
Furthermore, looking at the limitations individually or as any ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at each claim as a whole. There is no indication that the individual elements or combinations of elements amount to an inventive concept.
Therefore, claims 1, 15, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Regarding claims 2, 5 – 11, 13 – 14, and 19 – 22, the Office carries over its determination from Step 2A, Prong Two that claims 2, 5 – 11, 13 – 14, and 19 – 22 do not further recite additional limitations beyond the judicial exception (i.e., the abstract idea of determining whether endoscopic images include lesions or other features of priority) so as to apply the same determination in Step 2B. See MPEP 2106.05(II). The Office further carries over its conclusions from the considerations discussed in MPEP 2106.05(a) through (c), (e) through (h) in Step 2A, Prong Two so as to apply the same considerations in Step 2B. The dependent claims merely present additional abstract information in tandem with further details regarding the elements from the independent claims and are, therefore, directed to an abstract idea for similar reasons as given above. Claims 2, 5 – 11, 13 – 14, and 19 – 22 do not recite any additional limitations beyond the abstract idea of determining a subject’s medical status and the accuracy or quality of the medical status.
Each claim as a whole does not provide an improvement to technology or technical field under MPEP 2106.05(a), but rather only improves the abstract idea itself. Each claim as a whole amounts to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea to generic computer components (i.e., the processors and the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium) under MPEP 2106.05(f). Each claim as a whole recites the processors and the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium at a high level of generality, with their functions claimed in a merely generic manner such that each claim as a whole represents the well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions of a computer system (i.e., having processors and the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium) for automating the manual process of determining whether endoscopic images include lesions or other features of priority. Evidence that receiving input of endoscopic image data and outputting estimation result data D2 (i.e., a lesion name, a lesion location, and a probability score for an image feature) of the endoscopic image represented by endoscopic image data D1is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function is provided by Hirasawa (U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0337537 A1).
Therefore, claims 2, 5 – 11, 13 – 14, and 19 – 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 15, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kurosaki (U.S. Pub. No. 2015/0015612 A1) in view of routine optimization and Kura (U.S. Pub. No. 2017/0215693 A1).
Regarding independent claims 1, 15, and 17, Kurosaki teaches the limitations of representative claim 1 identified in bold as:
A medical support system (Abstract of Kurosaki, A medical report generating apparatus of the present embodiment includes a designation reception unit, an arrangement processor, and a medical report generator, and generates a medical report having an image arrangement region where medical images are arranged.), comprising:
one or more processors comprising hardware (Paragraphs [0057] – [0058] of Kurosaki. In the instant application, the broadest reasonable interpretation of “one or more processors comprising hardware” reads on the report display processor 106 of Kurosaki (Paragraphs [0057] and [0058]) including an arrangement processor.), wherein the one or more processors are configured to:
acquire a plurality of endoscopic images captured in an endoscopic examination and pieces of additional information that express features of the plurality of endoscopic images, the pieces of additional information being associated with the plurality of endoscopic images (Paragraphs [0024], [0027], and [0049] – [0051] of Kurosaki. In the instant application, the broadest reasonable interpretation of “acquire a plurality of endoscopic images captured in an endoscopic examination and pieces of additional information of the plurality of endoscopic images, the pieces of additional information being associated with the plurality of endoscopic images” reads on the activities in Kurosaki (Paragraphs [0024], [0027], and [0049] – [0051]) of acquiring, by an endoscope apparatus, a medical image captured in an endoscopic examination and acquiring, from the database, information related to the image including diagnosis information, such as the annotations, body marks, and the like.);
acquire a lesion image existence information indicating whether or not a lesion has been detected by computer-aided diagnosis in at least one of the plurality of endoscopic image (Paragraphs [0027], [0052] – [0053], and [0056] of Kurosaki. In the instant application, the broadest reasonable interpretation of “acquire a lesion image existence information indicating whether or not a lesion has been detected by computer-aided diagnosis in at least one of the plurality of endoscopic image” reads on the activity in Kurosaki (Paragraphs [0027], [0052] – [0053], and [0056]) of receiving endoscopic image data from the endoscope apparatus, with the image being used by the measurement processor to measure a length, an area, a volume, and the like, of … a lesion part. The Office has determined that it was well known in the art of computer-aided diagnosis at the time of filing that measuring zero length, zero area, and/or zero volume of the lesion part is an indication that a lesion has not been detected, by the system, in the endoscopic image.);
in response to the lesion image existence information indicating that a lesion has been detected, automatically, in a first mode, create a first report including at least one endoscopic image of the plurality of endoscopic images in which a lesion has been detected (Paragraphs [0027], [0052] – [0053], and [0056] – [0066] of Kurosaki. Based on the activity in Kurosaki (Paragraphs [0027], [0052] – [0053], and [0056]) of receiving endoscopic image data from the endoscope apparatus, with the image being used by the measurement processor to measure a length, an area, a volume, and the like, of … a lesion part, the Office has determined that it was well known in the art of computer-aided diagnosis at the time of filing that measuring non-zero length, non-zero area, and/or non-zero volume of the lesion part means that a lesion has been detected, by the system, in the endoscopic image. In the instant application, the broadest reasonable interpretation of “automatically, in a first mode, create a first report including at least one endoscopic image of the plurality of endoscopic images in which a lesion has been detected” reads on the activity in Kurosaki (Paragraphs [0027] and [0056] – [0066]) of generating, by the report generator, the medical report including an image arrangement region displaying endoscopic images (including the diagnosis information thereof, as needed) designated by image storage designation unit.); and
in response to the lesion image existence information indicating that the lesion has not been detected (Paragraphs [0027], [0052] – [0053], and [0056] of Kurosaki. Based on the activity in Kurosaki (Paragraphs [0027], [0052] – [0053], and [0056]) of receiving endoscopic image data from the endoscope apparatus, with the image being used by the measurement processor to measure a length, an area, a volume, and the like, of … a lesion part, the Office has determined that it was well known in the art of computer-aided diagnosis at the time of filing that measuring zero length, zero area, and/or zero volume of the lesion part is an indication that a lesion has not been detected, by the system, in the endoscopic image.),
automatically, in the second mode, select a predetermined number of endoscopic images of the plurality of endoscopic images, the predetermined number of the plurality of endoscopic images being associated with features having a highest priority from a priority order of features of the plurality of endoscopic images (Paragraphs [0027] and [0056] – [0066] of Kurosaki. In the instant application, the broadest reasonable interpretation of “automatically, in the second mode, select a predetermined number of endoscopic images of the plurality of endoscopic images, the predetermined number of the plurality of endoscopic images being associated with features having a highest priority from a priority order of features of the plurality of endoscopic images” reads on the activities in Kurosaki (Paragraphs [0027] and [0056] – [0066]) of processing endoscopic images to measure an organ, a lesion part, or the like and generating, by the report generator, the medical report including an image arrangement region displaying a designated order of the endoscopic images designated by image storage designation unit.); and
automatically create a report including select a predetermined amount of the predetermined number of endoscopic images selected and excluding the remainder of the plurality of endoscopic images (Paragraphs [0027] and [0056] – [0066] of Kurosaki. In the instant application, the broadest reasonable interpretation of “automatically create a report including select a predetermined amount of the predetermined number of endoscopic images selected” reads on the activities in Kurosaki (Paragraphs [0027] and [0056] – [0066]) of generating, by the report generator, the medical report including an image arrangement region displaying a designated order of the endoscopic images designated by image storage designation unit.).
Kurosaki does not appear to explicitly disclose, but Kura teaches the limitation of claim 1 identified in bold as “automatically create a report including select a predetermined amount of the predetermined number of endoscopic images selected report attachment images and excluding the remainder of the plurality of endoscopic images” (Paragraphs [0168] – [0169] of Kura. In the instant application, the broadest reasonable interpretation of “excluding the remainder of the plurality of endoscopic images” reads on the activity in Kura (Paragraphs [0168] – [0169]) of excluding the observation image in the image region in the first lateral field of view direction displayed on the monitor.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of medical data mining and computer-aided diagnosis at the time of filing to modify the system and method of Kurosaki to include the activity of excluding the remainder of the plurality of endoscopic images, as taught by Kura (Paragraphs [0168] – [0169]) in order to display an observation image with a wider angle in the up and down direction (Paragraph [0170] of Kura).
Claims 2 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kurosaki as modified by routine optimization and Kura and applied to claim 1, and further in view of Goto (U.S. Pub. No. 2023/0084954 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Kurosaki as modified by Kura and applied to claim 1 teaches the limitation identified in bold as “the one or more processors are configured to: in response to the lesion image existence information indicating that the lesion has not been detected, automatically create the report including information indicating that there is no lesion, and the predetermined number of endoscopic images selected” (Paragraphs [0027], [0052] – [0053], and [0056] – [0066] of Kurosaki. Based on the activity in Kurosaki (Paragraphs [0027], [0052] – [0053], and [0056]) of receiving endoscopic image data from the endoscope apparatus, with the image being used by the measurement processor to measure a length, an area, a volume, and the like, of … a lesion part, the Office has determined that it was well known in the art of computer-aided diagnosis at the time of filing that measuring zero length, zero area, and/or zero volume of the lesion part is an indication that a lesion has not been detected, by the system, in the endoscopic image. The broadest reasonable interpretation of “automatically create the report including … the predetermined number of endoscopic images selected” reads on the activities in Kurosaki (Paragraphs [0027] and [0056] – [0066]) of processing endoscopic images to measure an organ, a lesion part, or the like and generating, by the report generator, the medical report including an image arrangement region displaying a designated order of the endoscopic images designated by image storage designation unit.).
Kurosaki as modified by routine optimization and Kura and applied to claim 1 does not appear to explicitly disclose, but Goto teaches the limitation identified in bold as “the one or more processors are configured to: in response to the lesion image existence information indicating that the lesion has not been detected, automatically create the report including information indicating that there is no lesion, and the predetermined number of endoscopic images selected” (Paragraph [0048] of Goto. The broadest reasonable interpretation of “automatically create the report including information indicating that there is no lesion” reads on the report-published image and the report-non-published image in Goto (Paragraph [0048]) captured in a medical test and linked with information of a medical test, findings, the …absence of a region-of-interest, such as a lesion.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of medical data mining and computer-aided diagnosis at the time of filing to modify the system and method of Kurosaki such that the one or more processors are configured to: in response to the lesion image existence information indicating that the lesion has not been detected, automatically create the report including information indicating that there is no lesion, and the predetermined number of endoscopic images selected, as taught by Goto (Paragraph [0048]) in order to provide a learning device, an operation method of a learning device, and a medical image processing terminal that acquire appropriate information from report information and extract data to be used in learning (Paragraph [0006] of Goto).
Regarding claim 19, Kurosaki as modified by routine optimization, Kura, and Goto, and applied to claim 2 teaches the limitation identified in bold as “wherein the one or more processors are configured to: arrange the predetermined number of endoscopic images in predetermined positions in the report” (Paragraphs [0027], [0052] – [0053], and [0056] – [0066] of Kurosaki. Based on the activity in Kurosaki (Paragraphs [0027], [0052] – [0053], and [0056]) of receiving endoscopic image data from the endoscope apparatus, with the image being used by the measurement processor to measure a length, an area, a volume, and the like, of … a lesion part, the Office has determined that it was well known in the art of computer-aided diagnosis at the time of filing that measuring non-zero length, non-zero area, and/or non-zero volume of the lesion part means that a lesion has been detected, by the system, in the endoscopic image. The broadest reasonable interpretation of “the one or more processors are configured to: arrange the predetermined number of endoscopic images in predetermined positions in the report” reads on the activity in Kurosaki (Paragraphs [0027] and [0056] – [0066]) of generating, by the report generator, the medical report including an image arrangement region displaying endoscopic images (including the diagnosis information thereof, as needed) designated by image storage designation unit.).
Claims 5 – 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kurosaki as modified by routine optimization and Kura and applied to claim 1, and further in view of Endo (U.S. Pub. No. 2023/0274429 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Kurosaki as modified by routine optimization and Kura and applied to claim 1 does not appear to explicitly disclose, but Endo teaches the limitation identified in bold as “the one or more processors are configured to set the priority order for each examination item based on input from a user” (Paragraphs [0091] and [0102] of Endo. In the instant application, the broadest reasonable interpretation of “the one or more processors are configured to set the priority order for each examination item based on input from a user” reads on the activity in Endo (Paragraphs [0091] and [0102]) of presetting, by a user operating the category button, each of the pieces of preset first image information in association with at least one of the plurality of categories such that it is possible to easily and flexibly select the endoscope image according to the user's desire when creating the examination report.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of medical data mining and computer-aided diagnosis at the time of filing to modify the system and method of Kurosaki as modified by routine optimization and Kura such that the one or more processors are configured to set the priority order for each examination item based on input from a user, as taught by Endo (Paragraphs [0091] and [0102]) in order to reduce the time and effort to select the endoscope image, such as a case where an endoscopist manually selects an endoscope image from a large number of endoscope images acquired in one examination (Paragraphs [0004] – [0005] of Endo).
Regarding claim 6, Kurosaki as modified by routine optimization and Kura and applied to claim 1 does not appear to explicitly disclose, but Endo teaches the limitations identified in bold as:
the additional information includes information indicating an organ included in the plurality of endoscopic images (Paragraph [0070] and [0072] of Endo. In the instant application, the broadest reasonable interpretation of “the additional information includes information indicating an organ included in the plurality of endoscopic images” reads on the first image information in Endo (Paragraphs [0070] and [0072]) on a part included in a subject image (e.g., the esophagus in the image).); and
the one or more processors are configured to: in response to the lesion image existence information indicating that the lesion has not been detected, automatically, in the second mode, select the predetermined number of endoscopic images based on the priority order set for the organ (Paragraphs [0027], [0052] – [0053], and [0056] of Kurosaki. Paragraph [0102] of Endo. Based on the activity in Kurosaki (Paragraphs [0027], [0052] – [0053], and [0056]) of receiving endoscopic image data from the endoscope apparatus, with the image being used by the measurement processor to measure a length, an area, a volume, and the like, of … a lesion part, the Office has determined that it was well known in the art of computer-aided diagnosis at the time of filing that measuring zero length, zero area, and/or zero volume of the lesion part is an indication that a lesion has not been detected, by the system, in the endoscopic image. The broadest reasonable interpretation of “automatically, in the second mode, select the predetermined number of endoscopic images based on the priority order set for the organ” reads on the activity in Endo (Paragraph [0102]) of selecting the endoscope image according to the pieces of first image information (i.e., the user’s desire) set in association with at least one of the categories (i.e., a part included in the subject image, such as an esophagus).).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of medical data mining and computer-aided diagnosis at the time of filing to modify the system and method of Kurosaki such that a. the additional information includes information indicating an organ included in the plurality of endoscopic images and b. the one or more processors are configured to: in response to the lesion image existence information indicating that the lesion has not been detected, automatically, in the second mode, select the predetermined number of endoscopic images based on the priority order set for the organ, as taught by Endo (Paragraph [0102]) in order to reduce the time and effort to select the endoscope image, such as a case where an endoscopist manually selects an endoscope image from a large number of endoscope images acquired in one examination (Paragraphs [0004] – [0005] of Endo).
Claims 7 – 8 and 10 – 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kurosaki as modified by routine optimization, Kura, and Endo and applied to claim 6, and further in view of Iwamura (U.S. Pub. No. 2015/0262014 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Kurosaki as modified by routine optimization, Kura, and Endo and applied to claim 6 does not appear to explicitly disclose, but Iwamura teaches the limitation identified in bold as:
the additional information includes information indicating a site of the organ included in the plurality of endoscopic images (Paragraphs [0083] – [0085] of Iwamura. In the instant application, the broadest reasonable interpretation of “the additional information includes information indicating a site of the organ included in the endoscopic images” reads on the anatomical position information of Iwamura (Paragraphs [0083] – [0085]) including site information on the chest, the abdomen or the like to which the local structure corresponding to the anatomical position belongs.).
the one or more processors are configured to: in response to the lesion image existence information indicating that the lesion has not been detected, automatically, in the second mode, select the predetermined number of endoscopic images based on the priority order set for the site of the organ (Paragraphs [0027], [0052] – [0053], and [0056] – [0066] of Kurosaki. Paragraphs [0101] – [0103] of Iwamura. Based on the activity in Kurosaki (Paragraphs [0027], [0052] – [0053], and [0056]) of receiving endoscopic image data from the endoscope apparatus, with the image being used by the measurement processor to measure a length, an area, a volume, and the like, of … a lesion part, the Office has determined that it was well known in the art of computer-aided diagnosis at the time of filing that measuring zero length, zero area, and/or zero volume of the lesion part is an indication that a lesion has not been detected, by the system, in the endoscopic image. The broadest reasonable interpretation of “the one or more processors are configured to … automatically, in the second mode, select the predetermined number of endoscopic images based on the priority order set for the site of the organ” reads on the activity in Iwamura (Paragraphs [0101] – [0103]) of selecting the local structure from the key image local structure list for the key image based on any of information on the site to be inspected.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of medical data mining and computer-aided diagnosis at the time of filing to modify the system and method of Kurosaki as modified by routine optimization, Kura, and Endo and applied to claim 6 such that the additional information includes information indicating a site of the organ included in the plurality of endoscopic images and the one or more processors are configured to, in response to the lesion image existence information indicating that the lesion has not been detected, automatically, in the second mode, select the predetermined number of endoscopic images based on the priority order set for the site of the organ, as taught by Iwamura (Paragraphs [0101] – [0103]) in order to provide an image interpretation report creating apparatus that assists creation of an image interpretation report by making a list of a candidate site of a finding from a selected key image based on the position (anatomical position) of the local structure (Paragraph [0009] of Iwamura).
Regarding claim 8, Kurosaki as modified by routine optimization, Kura, and Endo and applied to claim 1 does not appear to explicitly disclose, but Iwamura teaches the limitation identified in bold as:
the additional information includes information indicating order of imaging of the plurality of endoscopic images (Paragraph [0098] of Iwamura, FIG. 8 are diagrams for illustrating generation of a key image local structure list for an attached key image in the image interpretation report creating apparatus 100 according to the first embodiment. The left diagram of FIG. 8A shows an example of the medical image data, and the right diagram of FIG. 8A shows an attached key image. In the example shown in the right diagram of FIG. 8A, the slice number of the attached key image is “34”.
PNG
media_image1.png
382
572
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Paragraph [0101] of Iwamura, FIG. 8B shows an example of the key image local structure list for the attached key image. From the left to the right, the table of FIG. 8B shows a local structure, coordinates and a slice number for each of the anatomical positions shown in FIG. 8A. FIG. 8B shows an example in which anatomical positions are represented by coordinates and slice numbers of the slice images.
PNG
media_image2.png
252
387
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In the instant application, the broadest reasonable interpretation of “the additional information includes information indicating order of imaging of the plurality of endoscopic images” reads on the slice or slice number of Iwamura (Paragraphs [0098] and [0101]; FIGS. 8A and 8B) indicating the order of the attached key image.); and
wherein the one or more processors are configured to: when two or more of the endoscopic images including the same organ or the same site have been acquired, automatically select, in the second mode, the predetermined number of endoscopic images from among the plurality of endoscopic images including the organ or the site based on the priority order set for the order of imaging (Paragraph [0102] of Iwamura, If the key image local structure list for the key image (attached key image, for example) extracted as described above is displayed in the finding entry field shown in FIG. 7, the local structure can be simply selected from the list. The broadest reasonable interpretation of “the one or more processors are configured to: when two or more of the endoscopic images including the same organ or the same site have been acquired, automatically select, in the second mode, the predetermined number of endoscopic images from among the plurality of endoscopic images including the organ or the site based on the priority order set for the order of imaging” reads on the activity in Iwamura (Paragraph [0102]) of selecting the local structure from the key image local structure list for the key image (attached key image, for example) displayed in the finding entry field.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of medical data mining and computer-aided diagnosis at the time of filing to modify the system and method of Kurosaki as modified by routine optimization, Kura, and Endo such that the additional information includes information indicating order of imaging of the plurality of endoscopic images and the one or more processors are configured to: when two or more of the endoscopic images including the same organ or the same site have been acquired, select automatically select, in the second mode, the predetermined number of endoscopic images from among the plurality of endoscopic images including the organ or the site based on the priority order set for the order of imaging, as taught by Iwamura (Paragraph [0102]) in order to provide an image interpretation report creating apparatus that assists creation of an image interpretation report by making a list of a candidate site of a finding from a selected key image based on the position (anatomical position) of the local structure (Paragraph [0009] of Iwamura).
Regarding claim 10, Kurosaki as modified by routine optimization, Kura, Endo, and Iwamura and applied to claim 7, teaches the limitation identified in bold as “the one or more processors are configured to: in response to the lesion image existence information indicating that the lesion has not been detected, automatically, in the second mode, when two or more endoscopic images, of the plurality of endoscopic images, including the same organ have been acquired, select the predetermined number of endoscopic images from the two or more endoscopic images including the organ based on the priority order set for a site of the organ” (Paragraphs [0027], [0052] – [0053], and [0056] – [0066] of Kurosaki. Paragraphs [0070], [0072], and [0102] of Endo. Based on the activity in Kurosaki (Paragraphs [0027], [0052] – [0053], and [0056]) of receiving endoscopic image data from the endoscope apparatus, with the image being used by the measurement processor to measure a length, an area, a volume, and the like, of … a lesion part, the Office has determined that it was well known in the art of computer-aided diagnosis at the time of filing that measuring zero length, zero area, and/or zero volume of the lesion part is an indication that a lesion has not been detected, by the system, in the endoscopic image. The broadest reasonable interpretation of “the one or more processors are configured to … automatically, in the second mode, when two or more endoscopic images, of the plurality of endoscopic images, including the same organ have been acquired, select the predetermined number of endoscopic images from the two or more endoscopic images including the organ based on the priority order set for a site of the organ” reads on the first image information in Endo (Paragraphs [0070] and [0072]) on a part included in a subject image (e.g., the esophagus in the image) and the activity in Endo (Paragraph [0102]) of selecting the endoscope image by designating the first image information for each category (e.g., the esophagus).).
Regarding claim 11, Kurosaki as modified by routine optimization, Kura, Endo, and Iwamura and applied to claim 7, teaches the limitation identified in bold as “the one or more processors are configured to: in response to the lesion image existence information indicating that the lesion has not been detected, automatically, in the second mode, select the predetermined number of endoscopic images based on priority order set for a combination of an organ and a site” (Paragraphs [0027], [0052] – [0053], and [0056] – [0066] of Kurosaki. Paragraphs [0083] – [084] of Iwamura. Based on the activity in Kurosaki (Paragraphs [0027], [0052] – [0053], and [0056]) of receiving endoscopic image data from the endoscope apparatus, with the image being used by the measurement processor to measure a length, an area, a volume, and the like, of … a lesion part, the Office has determined that it was well known in the art of computer-aided diagnosis at the time of filing that measuring zero length, zero area, and/or zero volume of the lesion part is an indication that a lesion has not been detected, by the system, in the endoscopic image. The broadest reasonable interpretation of “the one or more processors are configured to … automatically, in the second mode, select the predetermined number of endoscopic images based on priority order set for a combination of an organ and a site” reads on the medical image data of Iwamura (Paragraph [0084]) associated with the anatomical position information including site information on the chest, the abdomen or the like to which the local structure (i.e., an organ) corresponding to the anatomical position (i.e., site) belongs.).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kurosaki as modified by routine optimization, Kura, Endo, and Iwamura and applied to claim 8, and further in view of Usuda (U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0042926 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Kurosaki as modified by routine optimization, Kura, Endo, and Iwamura and applied to claim 8 does not appear to explicitly disclose, but Usuda teaches the limitation identified in bold as “the one or more processors are configured to as the priority order for the order of imaging, set any one of a first priority criterion for preferentially selecting an endoscopic image of the plurality of endoscopic images captured at an initial point in time, a second priority criterion for preferentially selecting an endoscopic image of the plurality of endoscopic images captured at an intermediate point in time, and a third priority criterion for preferentially selecting an endoscopic image of the plurality of endoscopic images captured at a final point in time” (Paragraph [0101] of Usuda. In the instant application, the broadest reasonable interpretation of “the one or more processors are configured to as the priority order for the order of imaging, set any one of a first priority criterion for preferentially selecting an endoscopic image of the plurality of endoscopic images captured at an initial point in time, a second priority criterion for preferentially selecting an endoscopic image of the plurality of endoscopic images captured at an intermediate point in time, and a third priority criterion for preferentially selecting an endoscopic image of the plurality of endoscopic images captured at a final point in time” reads on the selection criterion of Usuda (Paragraph [0101]) for the representative image selection unit 111 being, among the endoscopic images in a group, , for example, an endoscopic image captured earliest, an endoscopic image captured with white light, an endoscopic image that is blurred to the smallest degree, an endoscopic image in which a lesion is present closest to the center, or an endoscopic image captured without enlargement is selected as a representative image.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of medical data mining and computer-aided diagnosis at the time of filing to modify the system and method of Kurosaki as modified by routine optimization, Kura, Endo, and Iwamura such that the one or more processors are configured to as the priority order for the order of imaging, set any one of a first priority criterion for preferentially selecting an endoscopic image of the plurality of endoscopic images captured at an initial point in time, a second priority criterion for preferentially selecting an endoscopic image of the plurality of endoscopic images captured at an intermediate point in time, and a third priority criterion for preferentially selecting an endoscopic image of the plurality of endoscopic images captured at a final point in time, as taught by Usuda (Paragraph [0101]) in order to efficiently manage a large number of endoscopic images of the same region of interest, captured in an endoscopic examination, from different viewpoints under different image capture conditions (Paragraph [0005] of Usuda).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kurosaki as modified by routine optimization and Kura and applied to claim 1, and further in view of Inoue (U.S. Pub. No. 2014/0063449 A1).
Regarding claim 14, Kurosaki as modified by routine optimization and Kura and applied to claim 1 does not appear to explicitly disclose, but Inoue teaches the limitation identified in bold as “the one or more processors are configured to: in response to the lesion image existence information indicating that the lesion has not been detected, automatically, in the second mode, as the report attachment images, not select the endoscopic images in which the additional information includes information indicating that the endoscopic images have not been properly captured” (Paragraphs [0027], [0052] – [0053], and [0056] – [0066] of Kurosaki. Paragraphs [0089] – [0090] of Inoue. Based on the activity in Kurosaki (Paragraphs [0027], [0052] – [0053], and [0056]) of receiving endoscopic image data from the endoscope apparatus, with the image being used by the measurement processor to measure a length, an area, a volume, and the like, of … a lesion part, the Office has determined that it was well known in the art of computer-aided diagnosis at the time of filing that measuring zero length, zero area, and/or zero volume of the lesion part is an indication that a lesion has not been detected, by the system, in the endoscopic image. The broadest reasonable interpretation of “the one or more processors are configured to … automatically, in the second mode, as the report attachment images, not select the endoscopic images in which the additional information includes information indicating that the endoscopic images have not been properly captured” reads on the activity in Inoue (Paragraphs [0089] – [0090], FIG. 6B) of not selecting (i.e., in Step S17) whether or not to transit the photography of the scanning pattern group in a predetermined examination set to the report screen, because it was determined in Step S15 that the image is an improper image.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of medical data mining and computer-aided diagnosis at the time of filing to modify the system and method of Kurosaki as modified by routine optimization and Kura and applied to claim 1 such that the one or more processors are configured to, as the report attachment images, not select the endoscopic images in which the additional information includes information indicating that the images have not been properly captured, as taught by Inoue (Paragraphs [0089] – [0090]) in order to improve retrieval of inspection data and examination efficiency (Paragraph [0013] of Inoue).
Claims 20 – 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kurosaki as modified by routine optimization, Kura, and Goto and applied to an associated one of claims 2, 15, and 17, and further in view of Inoue (U.S. Pub. No. 2014/0063449 A1).
Regarding claims 20 – 22, Kurosaki as modified by routine optimization and Kura and applied to an associated one of claims 2, 15, and 17 teaches the limitation identified in bold as “wherein the one or more processors are configured to: set, based on user selection received via a user interface, the priority order of the features of the plurality of endoscopic images” (Paragraphs [0027] and [0056] – [0066] of Kurosaki. In the instant application, the broadest reasonable interpretation of “the one or more processors are configured to: set … the priority order of the features of the plurality of endoscopic images” reads on the activities in Kurosaki (Paragraphs [0027] and [0056] – [0066]) of processing endoscopic images to measure an organ, a lesion part, or the like and generating, by the report generator, the medical report including an image arrangement region displaying a designated order of the endoscopic images designated by image storage designation unit.).
Kurosaki as modified by routine optimization and Kura and applied to an associated one of claims 2, 15, and 17 does not appear to explicitly disclose, but Goto teaches the limitation identified in bold as “wherein the one or more processors are configured to: set, based on user selection received via a user interface, the priority order of the features of the plurality of endoscopic images” (Paragraphs [0039] and [0040] of Goto. In the instant application, the broadest reasonable interpretation of “user selection received via a user interface” reads on the user interface in Goto (Paragraphs [0039] and [0040]) being an input device that performs a setting input into the learning device 11 and includes a keyboard and a mouse.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of medical data mining and computer-aided diagnosis at the time of filing to modify the system and method of Kurosaki as modified by Endo and applied to claim 1 such that t the one or more processors are configured to: set, based on user selection received via a user interface, the priority order of the features of the plurality of endoscopic images, as taught by Goto (Paragraphs [0039] – [0040]) in order to reduce the possibility of learning the wrong type of data that is not to be used in the first place, data that is unsuitable for learning which is not a system operation target, and the like (Paragraph [0003] of Goto).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 13 is 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 claims. The broadest reasonable interpretation of “the endoscopic examination includes upper endoscopy and lower endoscopy” reads on the upper gastrointestinal endoscopy and lower gastrointestinal endoscopy of Nishide (Paragraph [0153]). The broadest reasonable interpretation of “the one or more processors are configured to select the report attachment images for upper endoscopy based on the third priority criterion” reads on the activity in Nishide (Paragraph [0153]) of capturing the endoscopic image by the upper endoscopy when the rotation angle is an angle with a vertical direction parallel to the body axis of the subject as a rotation axis and the upper endoscopy is inserted by an insertion distance into the oral cavity portion of the subject. The broadest reasonable interpretation of “select the report attachment images for lower endoscopy based on the second priority criterion” reads on the activity in Nishide (Paragraph [0153]) of capturing the endoscopic image by the lower endoscopy when the rotation angle is an angle with a vertical direction parallel to the body axis of the subject as a rotation axis and the lower endoscopy is inserted by an insertion distance into the anal portion of the subject. However, there is no motivation to modify Kurosaki as modified by routine optimization, Kura, Endo, Iwamura, and Usuda in view of Nishide (Paragraph [0153]), but rather such modification would be motivated by impermissible hindsight gleaned only from the disclosure of the instant application.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VINCENT CAESAR ILAGAN whose telephone number is (703) 756-1639. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 am - 6:00pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jason B. Dunham, can be reached on (571) 272-8109. 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.
/V.C.I./Examiner, Art Unit 3686
/DEVIN C HEIN/Examiner, Art Unit 3686