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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al (US 20230076352 A1) in view of Sakashita et al (US 9538125 B2).
Regarding Claim 1, Zhang et al teaches an information processing device (110 in Fig.1; see Paragraph [0050] “In some embodiments, the imaging device 110 may include a gantry 111, one or more detectors 112, a radiation source 113, or any other components (e.g., a compression paddle, or a table). The gantry 111 may be configured to provide support for other components (e.g., the radiation source 113, the detector(s) 112, etc.) of the imaging device 110…) comprising: one or more memories storing instructions; and one or more processors that, upon execution of the stored instructions (see Paragraph [0067] “The imaging device may scan the subject from the multiple view angles using radiation rays (e.g., X-rays) and generate the multiple projection images. Each view angle may correspond to one projection image. For example, as shown in FIG. 5, a radiation source of the imaging device may scan the subject 500),…”) are configured to operate as:
a display control unit configured to, upon receiving an instruction for acquiring a first radiation image (see Paragraph [0121] “The image filtering module 730 may be configured to generate a low-frequency image and a high-frequency image),
control a display unit such that a second radiation image (see Paragraph [0121] “The image filtering module 730 may be configured to generate a low-frequency image and a high-frequency image ) is displayed first and then the first radiation image is displayed, the first radiation image being obtained by performing first image processing upon a radiation image obtained by detecting a radiation, (see Paragraph (0046] “ In some embodiments of the present disclosure, by performing one low-pass filtering operation on the generated MinIP image and one high-pass filtering operation on the generated MaxIP image, the low-frequency image and the high-frequency image used to generate the target image may be obtained, which reduces the count of filtering operations, thereby simplifying the image generation process, reducing imaging processing time, and improving the efficiency of image generation.”).
However, Zhang et al does not teach an information processing device comprising the second radiation image being obtained by performing second image processing requiring a shorter processing time than the first image processing upon the radiation image.
Sakashita et al teaches an information processing device comprising the second radiation image being obtained by performing second image processing requiring a shorter processing time than the first image processing upon the radiation image. (See column 10, Claim 4. “The display control apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the input unit inputs an odd number of images corresponding to one cinema image, and
the first generation unit generates the first and second low-frequency component images and the second generation unit generates the first and second high-frequency component images based on the obtained images, and
wherein the display control unit controls the display unit such that the first and second high- frequency component images are displayed preceding display of the first and second low-frequency component images.”).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art when the invention was made to incorporate the teachings of Sakashita et al into Zhang et al for using the second radiation image which requires a shorter processing time than the first image upon the radiation image, thus saving time required for a diagnosis of the radiation image.
Regarding Claim 2, Sakashita et al teaches the information processing device wherein, upon receiving an instruction for acquiring the second radiation image, the display control unit controls the display unit such that the first radiation image is not displayed and the second radiation image is displayed. (See column 10, Claim 4).
Regarding Claim 3, Zhang et al teaches the information processing device wherein the display control unit controls the display unit such that the second radiation image and first image processing information representing the first image processing are displayed and controls the display unit such that the first radiation image and the first image processing information are displayed. (see Paragraph [0144] “ FIG. 9 is a schematic diagram illustrating an exemplary user interface for setting weights to generate a target image according to some embodiments of the present disclosure. As shown in FIG. 9, a user interface 900 may include a first area 910 and a second area 920. The first area 910 may be configured to display an intermediate image 912 and a MaxIP image 914. The first area 910 may also display a first weight setting box 916 and a second weight setting box 918. The second area 920 may be configured to display a target image 925. A user (e.g., a doctor) may input the first weight in the first weight setting box 916 and/or a second weight in the second weight setting box 918….”).
Regarding Claim 4, Zhang et al teaches the information processing device wherein the display control unit controls the display unit such that a display of the first radiation image and a display of the second radiation image are switched in response to an instruction from an operator. (see Fig. 9).
Regarding Claim 5, Zhang et al teaches the information processing device wherein, when an instruction for acquiring the first radiation image is received and a setting for displaying the first radiation image is made, the display control unit controls the display unit such that the first radiation image is displayed first. (see Fig. 9).
Regarding Claim 7, Zhang et al teaches the information processing device wherein the first image processing is image processing using machine learning. (see Paragraph [0132] In some embodiments, the MinIP image and/or the MaxIP image may be generated based on a corresponding trained machine learning model. )
Regarding Claim 8, Zhang et al teaches the information processing device, wherein the first image processing is noise reduction processing using machine learning and the second image processing is noise reduction processing not using machine learning. (see Paragraph [0132] In some embodiments, the MinIP image and/or the MaxIP image may be generated based on a corresponding trained machine learning model.”);
(see Paragraph [0134] By performing the filtering operation, image noises in the MinIP image and the MaxIP image may be filtered out or reduced.”).
Regarding Claim 9, Zhang et al teaches the information processing device wherein the instruction is given by an operator before acquisition of the radiation image. (Fig. 9).
Regarding Claim 10, the Claim 10 is rejected for same reason as the Claim 1, since claim limitations are same in both claims.
Regarding Claim 11, Zhang et al teaches the information processing device wherein the first display unit has a higher resolution than the second display unit. (Figs. 9, 10).
Regarding Claim 12, the Claim 12 is rejected for same reason as the Claim 1, since claim limitations are same in both claims.
Regarding Claim 13, the method Claim 13 is rejected for same reason as the apparatus Claim 1, since claim limitations are same in both claims.
Regarding Claim 14, the CRM Claim 14 is rejected for same reason as the apparatus Claim 1, since claim limitations are same in both claims (the CRM non-transitory computer readable storage medium is shown in Paragraph 0026).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 6 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 following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: The prior arts fail to teach the information processing device wherein the display control unit controls the display unit such that the second radiation image is displayed in a display region used for a setting of imaging information that is one of a first display region of the display unit and a second display region of the display unit different from the first display region, and controls the display unit such that the first radiation image is displayed in the other one of the first display region and the second display region as claimed in Claim 6.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Examiner cites particular columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
It is noted that any citation to specific pages, columns, figures, or lines in the prior art references any interpretation of the references should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331-33, 216 USPQ 1038-39 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)).
Examiner’s Note
Examiner has cited particular paragraphs/columns and line numbers or figures in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Applicant is reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the broadest reasonable interpretation to the language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to Applicant’s definition which is not specifically set forth in the claims.
In the case of amending the claimed invention, Applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VIJAY SHANKAR whose telephone number is (571)272-7682. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 am- 6 pm.
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, Matthew Eason can be reached at 571-270-7230. 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.
VIJAY SHANKAR
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2624
/VIJAY SHANKAR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2624