DETAILED ACTION
Notices to Applicant
This communication is a First Action Non-Final on the merits. Claims 18-28 as filed 07/05/2024, are currently pending and have been considered below. Claims 1-17 have been cancelled.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
The present application is a divisional application of U.S. Application No. 16/550,899, filed on 08/26/2019, which claims the benefit of Japanese Patent Application No. 2018-158048, filed on 08/27/2018 and Japanese Patent Application No. 2019-122644 filed on 07/01/2019.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the Abstract is written in multiple paragraph for matting, not in a single paragraph format. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Interpretation
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 pre-AIA 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: an “inputter” in claim 18.
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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
The present Application Specification describes an “inputter” as “a device used by a user of the similar image display apparatus 100 to input instructions directed at the similar image display apparatus 100 and input query images. Examples of the inputter 31 include a keyboard, mouse, touch panel, camera, and the like. The controller 10 acquires instructions and query images from the user via the inputter 31. Any device can be used as the inputter 31 as long as the controller 10 can acquire
instructions or query images from the user.” See Application Specification [0012]). Under broadest reasonable interpretation, an “imputer” is interpreted as any general purpose input device to a processing unit.
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 18-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claims 18-24 and 28 are drawn to a display control apparatus, which is within the four statutory categories (i.e. machine).
Independent Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim 18 recites (additional elements bolded):
18. (Currently Amended) A display control apparatus comprising:
an inputter for allowing a user to input a query image to initiate a diagnostic process, a processor configured to
input the query image into a disease identifier for generating a plurality of indexes,
acquire a malignant index of the plurality of indexes representing a possibility that an attribute of a disease of a diagnosis target area is malignant and a first disease attribute index of the plurality of indexes representing a possibility that an attribute of the disease of the diagnosis target area is a prescribed first disease attribute, and
cause the acquired malignant index and the acquired first disease attribute index to be displayed in association with each other on a display.
The claim limitations, as drafted, is a machine that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing personal behavior or interactions between people through rules or instructions but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting the above bolded limitations, for example “an inputter for allowing a user to input a query image to initiate a diagnostic process, a processor configured to,” and “on a display,” nothing in the claim precludes the steps from reciting rules or instructions for managing personal behavior or interactions between people. For example, but for the above bolded language, input the query image into a disease identifier for generating a plurality of indexes, and acquire a malignant index of the plurality of indexes representing a possibility that an attribute of a disease of a diagnosis target area is malignant and a first disease attribute index of the plurality of indexes representing a possibility that an attribute of the disease of the diagnosis target area is a prescribed first disease attribute in the context of this claim encompasses the rules or instructions for generating and acquiring indexes associated with a disease. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing personal behavior or interactions between people through rules or instructions but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites the above bolded additional elements of, for example, “an inputter for allowing a user to input a query image to initiate a diagnostic process, a processor configured to,” and “on a display,” to perform the claim limitations. The elements in each of these steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., an inputter as any general purpose input device to a processor, a processor such as a central processing unit, and a display such as an output interface as they relate to general purpose computer components (Application Specification [0010], [0012], [0013])). As such, the limitations amount to no more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer or machinery in its ordinary capacity, or merely uses a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f)(2). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that 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, the above bolded additional elements, for example, “an inputter for allowing a user to input a query image to initiate a diagnostic process, a processor configured to,” and “on a display,” to perform the claim limitations amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. (i.e., an inputter as any general purpose input device to a processor, a processor such as a central processing unit, and a display such as an output interface as they relate to general purpose computer components (Application Specification [0010], [0012], [0013])). Mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer or machinery in its ordinary capacity, or merely using a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity as a tool to perform an abstract idea cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(f)(2). The claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 18-24 and 28 include limitations of the independent claim and are directed to the same abstract idea as discussed above and incorporated herein. The dependent claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because they are directed to non-statutory subject matter. These additional claims recite what the data is and how it is analyzed. These information characteristics do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and, when viewed individually or as a whole, they do not add anything substantial beyond rules or instructions or managing personal behavior or interactions between people for generating and acquiring indexes associated with a disease. Furthermore, the combination of elements does not indicate a significant improvement to the functioning of a computer or any other technology. Therefore the dependent claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 25 is drawn to a display control system, which is within the four statutory categories (i.e. machine).
Claim 26 is drawn to a display control method, which is within the four statutory categories (i.e. method).
Claim 27 is drawn to a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium, which is within the four statutory categories (i.e. manufacture).
Each of the above Independent claims 25-27 recite substantially similar limitations and each are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Exemplary, claim 25 recites (additional elements bolded):
25. (Currently Amended) A display control system comprising: a display control apparatus; and a display, wherein the display control apparatus
allows a user to input a query image to initiate a diagnostic process,
inputs the query image into a disease identifier for generating a plurality of indexes,
acquires a malignant index of the plurality of indexes representing a possibility that an attribute of a disease of a diagnosis target area is malignant and a first disease attribute index of the plurality of indexes representing a possibility that an attribute of the disease of the diagnosis target area is a prescribed first disease attribute, and
causes the acquired malignant index and the acquired first disease attribute index to be displayed in association with each other on the display.
The claim limitations of claims 25-27, as drafted, is a machine/method/manufacture that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing personal behavior or interactions between people through rules or instructions but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting the above bolded limitations, for example “a display control apparatus; and a display, wherein the display control apparatus,” nothing in the claim precludes the steps from reciting rules or instructions for managing personal behavior or interactions between people. For example, but for the above bolded language, input the query image into a disease identifier for generating a plurality of indexes, and acquire a malignant index of the plurality of indexes representing a possibility that an attribute of a disease of a diagnosis target area is malignant and a first disease attribute index of the plurality of indexes representing a possibility that an attribute of the disease of the diagnosis target area is a prescribed first disease attribute in the context of this claim encompasses the rules or instructions for generating and acquiring indexes associated with a disease. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing personal behavior or interactions between people through rules or instructions but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites the above bolded additional elements of, for example, “a display control apparatus; and a display, wherein the display control apparatus,” (Claim 25), “a display,” (Claims 25-27), and “a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing a program for causing a computer to execute processing,” (Claim 27), to perform the claim limitations. The elements in each of these steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., a display control apparatus including general purpose computing elements of a processor such as a central processing unit and memory (ROM/RAM and the like i.e. non-transitory), and a display such as an output interface as they relate to general purpose computer components (Application Specification [0010], [0011], [0012], [0013], [0047]-[0049], [0123])). As such, the limitations amount to no more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer or machinery in its ordinary capacity, or merely uses a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f)(2). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that 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, the above bolded additional elements, for example, “a display control apparatus; and a display, wherein the display control apparatus,” (Claim 25), “a display,” (Claims 25-27), and “a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing a program for causing a computer to execute processing,” (Claim 27), to perform the claim limitations amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. (i.e., a display control apparatus including general purpose computing elements of a processor such as a central processing unit and memory (ROM/RAM and the like i.e. non-transitory), and a display such as an output interface as they relate to general purpose computer components (Application Specification [0010], [0011], [0012], [0013], [0047]-[0049], [0123])). Mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer or machinery in its ordinary capacity, or merely using a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity as a tool to perform an abstract idea cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(f)(2). The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(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 18-21 and 24-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US 2021/0019342 A1 (hereinafter “Peng et al.”).
RE: Claim 18 Peng et al. teaches the claimed:
18. (Currently Amended) A display control apparatus comprising:
an inputter for allowing a user to input a query image to initiate a diagnostic process, a processor configured to input the query image into a disease identifier for generating a plurality of indexes ((Peng et al., [0003], [0011]) (The system further includes a computer system configured as a search tool for receiving an input image query from a user; the computer system is trained to find one or more similar medical images in the memory system which are similar to the input image; the user interface provides for display of aggregate information about the similar medical images. For example, the aggregate information could take the form of the frequency of diagnostic keywords among the similar medical images, e.g., percent benign, percent cancerous, percent Gleason Grade 3, Gleason Grade 4)),
acquire a malignant index of the plurality of indexes representing a possibility that an attribute of a disease of a diagnosis target area is malignant and a first disease attribute index of the plurality of indexes representing a possibility that an attribute of the disease of the diagnosis target area is a prescribed first disease attribute ((Peng et al., [0051], [0059]) (the reference library includes similar collections of a variety of different tissue types, including breast, prostate, lung, brain, cervix, and other types of magnified tissue images, as well as radiological images (e.g., mammograms, chest X-rays) and photographic images of skin conditions ( e.g., rashes, benign and malignant tumors, dermatitis, etc.; semantic features from the Wang et al. method might be able to distinguish between different histological features, whereas activation layers from a tissue specimen classifier as additional embedding might help to differentiate specimen type ( e.g. prostate vs breast vs breast tissue), and a diagnostic classifier ( e.g. tumor detector, prostate Gleason score classifier, mortality risk predictor) might help to further distinguish between risk categories with the same tissue type))), and
cause the acquired malignant index and the acquired first disease attribute index to be displayed in association with each other on a display ((Peng et al., [0096]) ( There are several possible user interaction details that may be implemented in the workstation tools or features on the display:2. The result set of multiple similar images could be shown simultaneously, e.g. in a ranked list ordered by decreasing similarity, and with diagnosis keywords. 3. The ranked list of similar results could serve to show both the intra-class variability (e.g. different appearances of prostate Gleason 3 cancer), or the (ideally lower) similarity to other classes it can be confused with (e.g. prostate Gleason 4 cancer) 5. Additional useful output can be provided in the form of aggregate information about the similar images in the neighborhood, e.g. showing diagnostic keywords along with their frequency among the similar images. 6. Group the resulting images by the case label that is known for them, e.g., group by "benign", "adenocarcinoma grade 3", "adenocarcinoma grade 4" etc.)).
RE: Claim 19 Peng et al. teaches the claimed:
19. (Original) The display control apparatus according to claim 18, wherein the processor acquires a risk index representing whether or not the risk of a disease, when the attribute of the disease is malignant and the attribute of the disease is the first disease attribute, is high ((Peng et al., [0059]) (whereas activation layers from a tissue specimen classifier as additional embedding might help to differentiate specimen type ( e.g. prostate vs breast vs breast tissue), and a diagnostic classifier ( e.g. tumor detector, prostate Gleason score classifier, mortality risk predictor) might help to further distinguish between risk categories with the same tissue type.)), and
causes the acquired risk index to be displayed on the display in association with the acquired malignant index and the acquired first disease attribute index ((Peng et al., [0011]) (the user interface provides for display of aggregate information about the similar medical images. For example, the aggregate information could take the form of the frequency of diagnostic keywords among the similar medical images, e.g., percent benign, percent cancerous, percent Gleason Grade 3, Gleason Grade 4. As another example the aggregate information could take the form of survival data, such as percent with survival less than two years, and so on)).
RE: Claim 20 Peng et al. teaches the claimed:
20. (Original) The display control apparatus according to claim 18, wherein the processor further acquires a benign index representing a possibility that the attribute of the disease of the diagnosis target area is benign and a second disease attribute index representing a possibility that the attribute of the disease of the diagnosis target area is a second disease attribute that is different from the first disease attribute (([0011]) (the aggregate information could take the form of the frequency of diagnostic keywords among the similar medical images, e.g., percent benign, percent cancerous, percent Gleason Grade 3, Gleason Grade 4. As another example the aggregate information could take the form of survival data, such as percent with survival less than two years, and so on)), and
causes the acquired malignant index, the acquired first disease attribute index, the acquired benign index, and the acquired second disease attribute index to be displayed in association with one another on the display ((Peng et al., [0096]) (There are several possible user interaction details that may be implemented in the workstation tools or features on the display:2. The result set of multiple similar images could be shown simultaneously, e.g. in a ranked list ordered by decreasing similarity, and with diagnosis keywords. 3. The ranked list of similar results could serve to show both the intra-class variability (e.g. different appearances of prostate Gleason 3 cancer), or the (ideally lower) similarity to other classes it can be confused with (e.g. prostate Gleason 4 cancer) 5. Additional useful output can be provided in the form of aggregate information about the similar images in the neighborhood, e.g. showing diagnostic keywords along with their frequency among the similar images. 6. Group the resulting images by the case label that is known for them, e.g., group by "benign", "adenocarcinoma grade 3", "adenocarcinoma grade 4" etc.)).
RE: Claim 21 Peng et al. teaches the claimed:
21. (Original) The display control apparatus according to claim 20, wherein the processor acquires a risk index representing whether or not the risk of the disease is high ((Peng et al., [0059]) (whereas activation layers from a tissue specimen classifier as additional embedding might help to differentiate specimen type ( e.g. prostate vs breast vs breast tissue), and a diagnostic classifier ( e.g. tumor detector, prostate Gleason score classifier, mortality risk predictor) might help to further distinguish between risk categories with the same tissue type.)), and
displays on the display the acquired risk index in association with the acquired malignant index, the acquired first disease attribute index, the acquired benign index, and the acquired second disease attribute index ((Peng et al., [0011]) (the user interface provides for display of aggregate information about the similar medical images. For example, the aggregate information could take the form of the frequency of diagnostic keywords among the similar medical images, e.g., percent benign, percent cancerous, percent Gleason Grade 3, Gleason Grade 4. As another example the aggregate information could take the form of survival data, such as percent with survival less than two years, and so on)).
RE: Claim 24 Peng et al. teaches the claimed:
24. (Original) The display control apparatus according to claim 18, wherein the processor outputs probabilities of the disease of the diagnosis target area being related to the individual attributes, and further acquires the outputted probabilities of the disease of the diagnosis target area being related to the individual attributes, as indexes of the individual attributes ((Peng et al., [0110]) (interface may display the one or more additional portions in a ranked list, e.g., ranked by similarity to the input query. The user interface can include a tool for filtering the one or more additional portions according to user-specified filter criteria, such as by size, cell count, similarity, Gleason score etc. The user interface can supports a further refinement of the search for one or more similar portions based on user input)).
RE: Claim 25 Peng et al. teaches the claimed:
25. (Currently Amended) A display control system comprising: a display control apparatus; and a display, wherein the display control apparatus allows a user to input a query image to initiate a diagnostic process, inputs the query image into a disease identifier for generating a plurality of indexes ((Peng et al., [0003], [0011], [0023]) (The system further includes a computer system configured as a search tool for receiving an input image query from a user; the computer system is trained to find one or more similar medical images in the memory system which are similar to the input image; the user interface provides for display of aggregate information about the similar medical images. For example, the aggregate information could take the form of the frequency of diagnostic keywords among the similar medical images, e.g., percent benign, percent cancerous, percent Gleason Grade 3, Gleason Grade 4; display on a workstation showing an input or query image and a set of similar images to the query image)),
acquires a malignant index of the plurality of indexes representing a possibility that an attribute of a disease of a diagnosis target area is malignant and a first disease attribute index of the plurality of indexes representing a possibility that an attribute of the disease of the diagnosis target area is a prescribed first disease attribute ((Peng et al., [0051], [0059]) (the reference library includes similar collections of a variety of different tissue types, including breast, prostate, lung, brain, cervix, and other types of magnified tissue images, as well as radiological images (e.g., mammograms, chest X-rays) and photographic images of skin conditions ( e.g., rashes, benign and malignant tumors, dermatitis, etc.; semantic features from the Wang et al. method might be able to distinguish between different histological features, whereas activation layers from a tissue specimen classifier as additional embedding might help to differentiate specimen type ( e.g. prostate vs breast vs breast tissue), and a diagnostic classifier ( e.g. tumor detector, prostate Gleason score classifier, mortality risk predictor) might help to further distinguish between risk categories with the same tissue type))), and
causes the acquired malignant index and the acquired first disease attribute index to be displayed in association with each other on the display ((Peng et al., [0096]) ( There are several possible user interaction details that may be implemented in the workstation tools or features on the display:2. The result set of multiple similar images could be shown simultaneously, e.g. in a ranked list ordered by decreasing similarity, and with diagnosis keywords. 3. The ranked list of similar results could serve to show both the intra-class variability (e.g. different appearances of prostate Gleason 3 cancer), or the (ideally lower) similarity to other classes it can be confused with (e.g. prostate Gleason 4 cancer) 5. Additional useful output can be provided in the form of aggregate information about the similar images in the neighborhood, e.g. showing diagnostic keywords along with their frequency among the similar images. 6. Group the resulting images by the case label that is known for them, e.g., group by "benign", "adenocarcinoma grade 3", "adenocarcinoma grade 4" etc.)).
RE: Claim 26 Peng et al. teaches the claimed:
26. (Currently Amended) A display control method comprising: allowing a user to input a query image to initiate a diagnostic process, inputting the query image into a disease identifier for generating a plurality of indexes ((Peng et al., [0003], [0011]) (The system further includes a computer system configured as a search tool for receiving an input image query from a user; the computer system is trained to find one or more similar medical images in the memory system which are similar to the input image; the user interface provides for display of aggregate information about the similar medical images. For example, the aggregate information could take the form of the frequency of diagnostic keywords among the similar medical images, e.g., percent benign, percent cancerous, percent Gleason Grade 3, Gleason Grade 4)),
acquiring a malignant index of the plurality of indexes representing a possibility that an attribute of a disease of a diagnosis target area is malignant and a first disease attribute index of the plurality of indexes representing a possibility that the attribute of the disease of the diagnosis target area is a prescribed first disease attribute ((Peng et al., [0051], [0059]) (the reference library includes similar collections of a variety of different tissue types, including breast, prostate, lung, brain, cervix, and other types of magnified tissue images, as well as radiological images (e.g., mammograms, chest X-rays) and photographic images of skin conditions ( e.g., rashes, benign and malignant tumors, dermatitis, etc.; semantic features from the Wang et al. method might be able to distinguish between different histological features, whereas activation layers from a tissue specimen classifier as additional embedding might help to differentiate specimen type ( e.g. prostate vs breast vs breast tissue), and a diagnostic classifier ( e.g. tumor detector, prostate Gleason score classifier, mortality risk predictor) might help to further distinguish between risk categories with the same tissue type))); and
causing the acquired malignant index and the acquired first disease attribute index to be displayed in association with each other on a display ((Peng et al., [0096]) (There are several possible user interaction details that may be implemented in the workstation tools or features on the display: 2. The result set of multiple similar images could be shown simultaneously, e.g. in a ranked list ordered by decreasing similarity, and with diagnosis keywords. 3. The ranked list of similar results could serve to show both the intra-class variability (e.g. different appearances of prostate Gleason 3 cancer), or the (ideally lower) similarity to other classes it can be confused with (e.g. prostate Gleason 4 cancer) 5. Additional useful output can be provided in the form of aggregate information about the similar images in the neighborhood, e.g. showing diagnostic keywords along with their frequency among the similar images. 6. Group the resulting images by the case label that is known for them, e.g., group by "benign", "adenocarcinoma grade 3", "adenocarcinoma grade 4" etc.)).
RE: Claim 27 Peng et al. teaches the claimed:
27. (Currently Amended) A non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing a program for causing a computer to execute processing comprising: allowing a user to input a query image to initiate a diagnostic process, inputting the query image into a disease identifier for generating a plurality of indexes ((Peng et al., [0003], [0011]) (The system further includes a computer system configured as a search tool for receiving an input image query from a user; the computer system is trained to find one or more similar medical images in the memory system which are similar to the input image; the user interface provides for display of aggregate information about the similar medical images. For example, the aggregate information could take the form of the frequency of diagnostic keywords among the similar medical images, e.g., percent benign, percent cancerous, percent Gleason Grade 3, Gleason Grade 4)),
acquiring a malignant index of the plurality of indexes representing a possibility that an attribute of a disease of a diagnosis target area is malignant and a first disease attribute index of the plurality of indexes representing a possibility that the attribute of the disease of the diagnosis target area is a prescribed first disease attribute ((Peng et al., [0051], [0059]) (the reference library includes similar collections of a variety of different tissue types, including breast, prostate, lung, brain, cervix, and other types of magnified tissue images, as well as radiological images (e.g., mammograms, chest X-rays) and photographic images of skin conditions ( e.g., rashes, benign and malignant tumors, dermatitis, etc.; semantic features from the Wang et al. method might be able to distinguish between different histological features, whereas activation layers from a tissue specimen classifier as additional embedding might help to differentiate specimen type ( e.g. prostate vs breast vs breast tissue), and a diagnostic classifier ( e.g. tumor detector, prostate Gleason score classifier, mortality risk predictor) might help to further distinguish between risk categories with the same tissue type))); and
causing the acquired malignant index and the acquired first disease attribute index to be displayed in association with each other on a display ((Peng et al., [0096]) (There are several possible user interaction details that may be implemented in the workstation tools or features on the display:2. The result set of multiple similar images could be shown simultaneously, e.g. in a ranked list ordered by decreasing similarity, and with diagnosis keywords. 3. The ranked list of similar results could serve to show both the intra-class variability (e.g. different appearances of prostate Gleason 3 cancer), or the (ideally lower) similarity to other classes it can be confused with (e.g. prostate Gleason 4 cancer) 5. Additional useful output can be provided in the form of aggregate information about the similar images in the neighborhood, e.g. showing diagnostic keywords along with their frequency among the similar images. 6. Group the resulting images by the case label that is known for them, e.g., group by "benign", "adenocarcinoma grade 3", "adenocarcinoma grade 4" etc.)).
RE: Claim 28 Peng et al. teaches the claimed:
28. (New) The display control apparatus according to claim 20 wherein the processor causes the malignant index and the benign index to be represented by a first axis in a two-dimensional space and causes the first disease attribute index and the second disease attribute index to be represented by a second axis in the two-dimensional space ((Peng et al., [0046], [0071]) (The embedding can be represented in a multidimensional feature space wherein images having close similarity rankings are grouped near each other. For example, the embedding can be characterized in many dimensions or axes of semantic information, such as tissue type, specimen type, histological features, disease state, etc., and visual similarity indicates the position of the elements of the reference library along such axes, with images having similar visual similarity being clustered close to each other while images that are not visually similar are not clustered close to each other; similarity may be biological similarity on one axis and degree or type of abnormality along the 2nd axis)).
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 for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 2021/0019342 A1 (hereinafter “Peng et al.”) in view of U.S. 2015/0169635 A1 (hereinafter “Jing et al.”)
RE: Claim 22 Peng et al. teaches the claimed:
22. (Original) The display control apparatus according to claim 20, wherein the processor determines coordinates of a position displaying information regarding a disease, further acquires a disease index representing a possibility that the disease of the diagnosis target area is a prescribed disease ((Peng et al., [0071]) (similarity may be biological similarity on one axis and degree or type of abnormality along the 2nd axis)).
Peng et al. fails to explicitly teach, but Jing et al. teaches the claimed:
causes the acquired indexes to be displayed in association with one another by a tree structure including a query image as a root node, a probability circle whose size is based on the acquired disease positioned in a position as indicated by the determined coordinates as a leaf node, and a connection line, based on the attributes of the disease of the diagnosis target area connecting the root node together with the leaf node ((Jing et al., [0036], [0087], [0088], Fig 3A) (the image search results in graphical or diagram forms including, but not limited to a tree structure, a fan structure, a spherical structure, a dendrogram structure, or some arbitrarily shaped structure indicating a hierarchical flow. Image clusters can take any shape that depicts a particular hierarchy including dendrograms, polygons, lines, spheres, flowcharts, file trees, and other 2-D or 3D shapes; the GUI depicts relationships between images using shape structure, distance, connection lines or lack of connection lines representing the relative cluster organization of the images in the hierarchy
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date would have found it obvious to combine image clusters displayed in file trees with connection lines depicting relationships between images as taught by Jing et al. within the system for searching for similar medical images as taught by Peng et al. with the motivation retrieving information relevant to a user’s needs and to present information about the resources in a manner that is most useful to the user (Jing et al. [0003]).
Claims 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 2021/0019342 A1 (hereinafter “Peng et al.”) in view of U.S. 2017/0143249 A1 (hereinafter “Davis et al.”)
RE: Claim 23 Peng et al. teaches the claimed:
23. (Original) The display control apparatus according to claim 20, wherein the diagnosis target area is skin ((Peng et al. [0004]) (wherein the medical images are selected from the group of images consisting of retinal images, tissue images, photographs of skin lesions, mammograms, and radiological images)).
Peng et al. fails to explicitly teach, but Davis et al. teaches the claimed:
and the first disease attribute is melanocytic and the second disease attribute is non-melanocytic ((Davis et al., [0065], [0188], [0394]) (A statistical breakdown of such correlations is typically provided to the user-in one or more rank-ordered sets. For example, the user may be presented with a rank ordered listing of the top five or ten possible diagnoses each including a stated probability based on frequency of occurrence from the top-matching reference image set. discriminate normal skin from melanoma and other pathologies i.e. melanocytic vs non-melanocytic; classifying a type of mole)).
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date would have found it obvious to combine the presenting to a user a ranked list of probabilities of possible diagnoses to discriminate normal skin from melanoma and other pathologies as taught by Davis et al. within the system for searching for similar medical images as taught by Peng et al. with the motivation of fulfilling the market demand of detecting earlier and earlier stage melanoma (Davis et al. [0188]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. 2018/0052869 A1 teaches automatic grouping based on handling of similar photos (Abstract);
U.S. 20130329973 A1 teaches analyzing medical image data of a region of interest in a sample tissue for determining a diagnostic determination of the region of interest ([0013]); and
Baldi, A., Murace, R., Dragonetti, E., Manganaro, M., Guerra, O., Bizzi, S., & Galli, L. (2009). Definition of an automated Content-Based Image Retrieval (CBIR) system for the comparison of dermoscopic images of pigmented skin lesions. Biomedical engineering online, 8, 18 teaches an image-based diagnostic machine (Abstract)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANTHONY BALAJ whose telephone number is (571)272-8181. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 - 4:00 M-F.
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, Fonya Long can be reached at (571) 270-5096. 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.
/A.M.B./Examiner, Art Unit 3682
/FONYA M LONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3682
Prosecution Insights