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 .
Claim Interpretation
Claim 7 recites, “a) detecting an abnormal region, which is an image region inferred to represent an abnormal portion inside a body, in each of a plurality of video frames constituting a video in which the inside of the body is captured; b) analyzing the plurality of video frames to determine a proportion of a number of video frames in which the abnormal region is detected; c) starting outputting of output information related to the detected abnormal region when a score based on the proportion becomes equal to or more than a first threshold value in a state where outputting of the output information is not being performed; and d) ending outputting of the output information when the score becomes equal to or less than a second threshold value in a state where outputting of the output information is being performed, e) wherein the second threshold value is smaller than the first threshold value, and f) the outputting of the output information comprises outputting sound data to the speaker, the sound data representing a predetermined sound. The claim does not require start outputting and end outputting limitations to be performed if the score is between the first and second threshold value, for example, third threshold value. Therefore, BRI of the claim requires only a), b) and f) to be performed.
Note that, the contingent/conditional limitations(s) are not positively recited in the claim(s) and are thus only executed [or performed or implemented], when the condition is true/met. [See, (MPEP 2111.04) II. CONTINGENT LIMITATIONS The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent is not met.]
For the claims 10 and 11, the same reasoning applies as for the claim 7 above.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-13 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims of U.S. Patent No. 12075969 in view of Imaizumi et al. (US 2018/0249900)(hereafter Imaizumi). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Instant application # 18789129
Patent # 12075969
1. An information processing apparatus, comprising: a speaker; at least one memory configured to store instructions; and at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to perform operations comprising: detecting an abnormal region, which is an image region inferred to represent an abnormal portion inside a body, in each of a plurality of video frames constituting a video in which the inside of the body is captured; analyzing the plurality of video frames to determine a proportion of a number of video frames in which the abnormal region is detected: starting outputting of output information related to the detected abnormal region when a score based on the proportion becomes equal to or more than a first threshold value in a state where outputting of the output information is not being performed; and ending outputting of the output information when the score becomes equal to or less than a second threshold value in a state and the outputting of the output information comprises displaying a mark, on the display, representing a position of the abnormal region in the video frames in which the abnormal region is detected.
2. The information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the operations further comprise computing the score for each group of the abnormal region representing a same abnormal portion.
3. The information processing apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the computing comprises computing, for a group of the abnormal region representing a same abnormal portion, statistics of likelihood that each abnormal region included in the group represents the abnormal portion inside the body, and setting a value based on the statistics as the score for the group.
4. The information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the operations further comprise setting the first threshold value for each group of the abnormal region representing a same abnormal portion, the outputting the output information comprises comparing the score computed for each group of the abnormal region representing a same abnormal portion with the first threshold value set for the group, and the setting the first threshold value comprises changing, to a smaller value, the first threshold value of the group in which outputting of the output information ends.
5. The information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein in a state where outputting of the output information is being performed, even when the score becomes equal to or less than the first threshold value, outputting of the output information is continued while the score is more than the second threshold value.
6. The information processing apparatus according claim 1, wherein detecting the abnormal region comprises using a detector that detects the abnormal region, the detector being generated by machine learning, and the operations optimize the output information so that it is easy for users to see the output information.
7. A control method being executed by a computer, comprising: detecting an abnormal region, which is an image region inferred to represent an abnormal portion inside a body, in each of a plurality of video frames constituting a video in which the inside of the body is captured; analyzing the plurality of video frames to determine a proportion of a number of video frames in which the abnormal region is detected; starting outputting of output information related to the detected abnormal region when a score based on the proportion becomes equal to or more than a first threshold value in a state where outputting of the output information is not being performed; and ending outputting of the output information when the score becomes equal to or less than a second threshold value in a state where outputting of the output information is being performed, wherein the second threshold value is smaller than the first threshold value, and the outputting of the output information comprises the outputting of the output information comprises and the outputting of the output information comprises displaying a mark, on the display, representing a position of the abnormal region in the video frames in which the abnormal region is detected.
8. The control method according to claim 7, wherein the score is computed for each group of the abnormal region representing a same abnormal portion.
9. The control method according to claim 8, wherein for a group of the abnormal region representing a same abnormal portion, statistics of likelihood that each abnormal region included in the group represents the abnormal portion inside the body is computed, and a value based on the statistics is set as the score for the group.
10. The control method according to claim 7, further comprising setting the first threshold value for each group of the abnormal region representing a same abnormal portion, wherein the score computed for each group of the abnormal region representing a same abnormal portion is compared with the first threshold value set for the group, and the first threshold value of the group in which outputting of the output information ends is changed to a smaller value.
11. The control method according to claim 7, wherein in a state where outputting of the output information is being performed, even when the score becomes equal to or less than the first threshold value, outputting of the output information is continued while the score is more than the second threshold value.
12. A non-transitory storage medium storing a program causing a computer to execute a control method, the control method comprising: detecting an abnormal region, which is an image region inferred to represent an abnormal portion inside a body, in each of a plurality of video frames constituting a video in which the inside of the body is captured; analyzing the plurality of video frames to determine a proportion of a number of video frames in which the abnormal region is detected; starting outputting of output information related to the detected abnormal region when a score based on the proportion becomes equal to or more than a first threshold value in a state where outputting of the output information is not being performed; ending outputting of the output information when the score becomes equal to or less than a second threshold value in a state where outputting of the output information is being performed, wherein the second threshold value is smaller than the first threshold value, and the outputting of the output information comprises displaying a mark, on the display, representing a position of the abnormal region in the video frames in which the abnormal region is detected.
13. The non-transitory storage medium according to claim 12, wherein in a state where outputting of the output information is being performed, even when the score becomes equal to or less than the first threshold value, outputting of the output information is continued while the score is more than the second threshold value.
1. An information processing apparatus, comprising: at least one memory configured to store instructions; and at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to perform operations comprising: detecting an abnormal region, which is an image region inferred to represent an abnormal portion inside a body, in each of a plurality of video frames constituting a video in which the inside of the body is captured; analyzing the plurality of video frames to determine a proportion of a number of video frames in which the abnormal region is detected; starting outputting of output information related to the detected abnormal region when a score based on the proportion becomes equal to or more than a first threshold value in a state where outputting of the output information is not being performed; and ending outputting of the output information when the score becomes equal to or less than a second threshold value in a state where outputting of the output information is being performed, wherein the second threshold value is smaller than the first threshold value.
2. The information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the operations further comprise computing the score for each group of the abnormal region representing a same abnormal portion.
3. The information processing apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the computing comprises computing, for a group of the abnormal region representing a same abnormal portion, statistics of likelihood that each abnormal region included in the group represents the abnormal portion inside the body, and setting a value based on the statistics as the score for the group.
4. The information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the operations further comprise setting the first threshold value for each group of the abnormal region representing a same abnormal portion, the outputting the output information comprises comparing the score computed for each group of the abnormal region representing a same abnormal portion with the first threshold value set for the group, and the setting the first threshold value comprises changing, to a smaller value, the first threshold value of the group in which outputting of the output information ends.
13. The non-transitory storage medium according to claim 9, wherein in a state where outputting of the output information is being performed, even when the detection score becomes equal to or less than the first threshold value, outputting of the output information is continued while the detection score is more than the second threshold value.
11. The information processing apparatus according claim 1, wherein detecting the abnormal region comprises using a detector that detects the abnormal region, the detector being generated by machine learning, and the operations optimize the output information so that it is easy for users to see the output information.
5. A control method being executed by a computer, comprising: detecting an abnormal region, which is an image region inferred to represent an abnormal portion inside a body, in each of a plurality of video frames constituting a video in which the inside of the body is captured; analyzing the plurality of video frames to determine a proportion of a number of video frames in which the abnormal region is detected; starting outputting of output information related to the detected abnormal region when a score based on the proportion becomes equal to or more than a first threshold value in a state where outputting of the output information is not being performed; and ending outputting of the output information when the score becomes equal to or less than a second threshold value in a state where outputting of the output information is being performed, wherein the second threshold value is smaller than the first threshold value.
6. The control method according to claim 5, wherein the score is computed for each group of the abnormal region representing a same abnormal portion.
7. The control method according to claim 6, wherein for a group of the abnormal region representing a same abnormal portion, statistics of likelihood that each abnormal region included in the group represents the abnormal portion inside the body is computed, and a value based on the statistics is set as the score for the group.
8. The control method according to claim 5, further comprising setting the first threshold value for each group of the abnormal region representing a same abnormal portion, wherein the score computed for each group of the abnormal region representing a same abnormal portion is compared with the first threshold value set for the group, and the first threshold value of the group in which outputting of the output information ends is changed to a smaller value.
12. The control method according to claim 5, wherein in a state where outputting of the output information is being performed, even when the detection score becomes equal to or less than the first threshold value, outputting of the output information is continued while the detection score is more than the second threshold value.
9. A non-transitory storage medium storing a program causing a computer to execute a control method, the control method comprising: detecting an abnormal region, which is an image region inferred to represent an abnormal portion inside a body, in each of a plurality of video frames constituting a video in which the inside of the body is captured; analyzing the plurality of video frames to determine a proportion of a number of video frames in which the abnormal region is detected; starting outputting of output information related to the detected abnormal region when a score based on the proportion becomes equal to or more than a first threshold value in a state where outputting of the output information is not being performed; ending outputting of the output information when the score becomes equal to or less than a second threshold value in a state where outputting of the output information is being performed, wherein the second threshold value is smaller than the first threshold value.
10. The information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein in a state where outputting of the output information is being performed, even when the detection score becomes equal to or less than the first threshold value, outputting of the output information is continued while the detection score is more than the second threshold value.
The difference between the Instant application Claim 1 and patent that the and the outputting of the output information comprises displaying a mark, on the display, representing a position of the abnormal region in the video frames in which the abnormal region is detected, however, Imaizumi teaches display section, 41 and see, fig.3, and [0049], marker image as square showing lesion region. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Imaizumi with the Patent, as a whole, so as to generate the sound upon detection of the abnormal region, the motivation is to detect the characteristic region.
Claims 1-13 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Co-pending application # 18/788991 (US publication # 20240382064A1) in view of Imaizumi et al. (US 2018/0249900)(hereafter Imaizumi). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Regarding claims 1, 7 and 12, the difference between Instant application and co-pending application is that outputting of the output information comprises displaying a mark, on the display, representing a position of the abnormal region in the video frames in which the abnormal region is detected. However, in same field of endeavor, Imaizumi teaches display section, 41 and see, fig.3, and [0049], marker image as square showing lesion region. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Imaizumi with the Co-pending application 18/788991, as a whole, so as to generate the sound upon detection of the abnormal region, the motivation is to detect the characteristic region.
Claims 2-6 and 9-11 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Co-pending application # 18/788991 as the claims of the instant application and co-pending application are substantially same.
5. Claims 1-13 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Co-pending application # 18/789060 (US publication # 2024/0382065A1) in view of Imaizumi et al. (US 2018/0249900)(hereafter Imaizumi). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Regarding claims 1, 7 and 12, the difference between Instant application and co-pending application is that outputting of the output information comprises displaying a mark, on the display, representing a position of the abnormal region in the video frames in which the abnormal region is detected. However, in same field of endeavor, Imaizumi teaches display section, 41 and see, fig.3, and [0049], marker image as square showing lesion region. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Imaizumi with the Co-pending application, as a whole, so as to generate the sound upon detection of the abnormal region, the motivation is to detect the characteristic region.
Claims 2-6 and 9-11 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Co-pending application as the claims of the instant application and co-pending application are substantially same.
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 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim 1, recites, “a detection step of detecting an abnormal region, which is an image region inferred to represent an abnormal step portion inside a body, in each of a plurality of video frames constituting a video in which the inside of the body is captured; and an output step of outputting output information related to the detected abnormal region, wherein in the output step, outputting of the output information is started when a score based on a proportion of the number of video frames in which the abnormal region is detected becomes equal to or more than a first threshold value in a state where outputting of the output information is not being performed, and outputting of the output information is ended when the score becomes equal to or less than a second threshold value in a state where outputting of the output information is being performed, and the second threshold value is smaller than the first threshold value and the outputting of the output information comprises displaying a mark, on the display, representing a position of the abnormal region in the video frames in which the abnormal region is detected”.
The limitations of detecting an abnormal region, analyzing and outputting information, as drafted, are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, “detecting an abnormal region in image” can be performed by surgeon or doctor by just looking at the image, analyzing the plurality of video frames to determine a proportional of a number of video frames in which abnormal region is detected is certain method of organizing human activity, Claims directed to "managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people" are classified as a "method of organizing human activity," which is a grouping of abstract ideas (MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), II.C , III. a mental process that a neurologist should follow when testing a patient for nervous system malfunctions, In re Meyer, 688 F.2d 789, 791-93, 215 USPQ 193, 194-96 (CCPA 1982)). The limitation, start and end outputting information by comparing with thresholds is mental step of determining the abnormal region in the image. outputting the information to speaker is merely an insignificant post solution activity.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” 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 recites additional elements – the outputting of the output information comprises displaying a mark, on the display, representing a position of the abnormal region in the video frames in which the abnormal region is detected, at least one memory and at least one processor are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer functions) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Claim 2 discloses computing the score for each group of abnormal regions can be mentally done as one can look at the image and give rating just by looking at the image and observing the abnormal region.
Claim 3 computes statistics of likelihood that each abnormal region included in the group represents the abnormal portion inside the body is merely doctor or surgeon can determine mentally or mathematically and sets a value which one can mentally assign value to the abnormal region for example doctor or surgeon can determine the high abnormality region in image or low abnormality region in image.
Claim 4 discloses setting the first threshold value for each group of abnormal regions representing the same abnormal portion can be done mentally and not significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 5 describes the outputting information depending upon the score can be done mentally as merely determining areas with the normal and abnormal regions and not significant.
Claim 6 describes additional limitation like machine learning . The machine learning is recited at a high-level of generality, no details on the neural network architecture etc. is given. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Claim 7 is rejected for same reason claim 1 is rejected.
Claim 8 recites, computing score representing abnormal region is mental step. One can look at the image and give rating just by looking at the image and observing the abnormal region.
Claim 9 recites, computes statistics of likelihood that each abnormal region included in the group represents the abnormal portion inside the body is merely doctor or surgeon can determine mentally or mathematically and sets a value which one can mentally assign value to the abnormal region for example doctor or surgeon can determine the high abnormality region in image or low abnormality region in image.
Claim 10 recites, “setting threshold value and score computing representing the abnormal region and changing the threshold to a smaller value” which is merely comparing the abnormal region to certain where doctor or surgeon routinely can detect the abnormal region in image more than the other places in image. Comparing to threshold is mental step.
Claim 11 describes the outputting information depending upon the score can be done mentally as merely determining areas with the normal and abnormal regions and not significant.
Claim 12 has additional limitations, “non-transitory storage medium”, “program”, “computer”, have been recognized by the courts as being well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality). MPEP § 2106.05(d), II. Courts have held computer‐implemented processes not to be significantly more than an abstract idea (and thus ineligible) where the claim as a whole amount to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement an abstract idea, such as an idea that could be done by a human analog (i.e., by hand or by merely thinking). See MPEP § 2106.05(d), II. The limitations include sending and receiving information regarding the assignment of videos to decoders. See MPEP § 2106.05(d), II, I, (Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362; TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015); buy SAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096).
Claim 13 is rejected for same reason claim 11 is rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 7-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Peleg (US9430706) (hereafter Peleg) (see IDS).
Regarding claim 7, Peleg discloses a control method being executed by a computer, comprising:
detecting an abnormal region (col. 4 lines 17-25), which is an image region inferred to represent an abnormal portion inside a body (col. 4 lines 17-25), in each of a plurality of video frames constituting a video in which the inside of the body is captured (see, col. 7 lines 4-6, col. 14 lines 50-53, col. 18 lines 55-65, frame level pathology determination);
analyzing the plurality of video frames to determine a proportion of a number of video frames in which the abnormal region is detected (see, col. 18 lines 55-65 discloses in FIG. 5D, there is a significant decrease between the pathology score of frames 5572 (which has a pathology score of 3.25), to the pathology score of frames 5516 (which has a pathology score of 0.9). 3. Long subsequence—a longer subsequence may indicate more frames which depict, include or contain the pathology candidate, and therefore should receive a higher subsequence score); and
the outputting of the output information comprises displaying a mark, on the display, representing a position of the abnormal region in the video frames in which the abnormal region is detected (see, col. 6 lines 35-40, include an LCD or other display for displaying image data or other data, e.g. location data, an indication signal, report, etc. regarding probable presence of a pathology, or another indication that a seed frame includes or contains a pathology, etc., co. 8 lines 60-66, the in-vivo device 40 may transmit or otherwise transfer (e.g., by wired communication) data marking sequences of image frames that may be candidates for pathology (e.g. polyp, ulcer, lesion, neoplasia, bleeding, etc.) identification directly to a viewing device or workstation 14 ).
Regarding claim 8, Peleg further discloses method, wherein the output unit computes the score for each group of the abnormal region representing a same abnormal portion (col 4 lines 17-31, col. 9 lines 42-60 teaches Data captured may be processed to automatically select image frames that may include pathology sequences or images which received a pathology sequence score which was higher than a predetermined threshold, or within a certain predetermined range. A high pathology sequence score may indicate that a pathology candidate identified in the analyzed frame was also identified and/or tracked in nearby adjacent frames, thus increasing the probability that the pathology candidate is indeed a pathology, col. 10 lines 16-24).
Regarding claim 9, Peleg further discloses the control method, for a group of the abnormal region representing a same abnormal portion, statistics of likelihood that each abnormal region included in the group represents the abnormal portion inside the body, and sets a value based on the statistics as the score for the group (see, col. 10 lines 17-24).
Regarding claim 10, Peleg further discloses the control method further comprising setting the first threshold value for each group of the abnormal region representing a same abnormal portion, wherein the score computed for each group of the abnormal region representing a same abnormal portion is compared with the first threshold value set for the group, and the first threshold value of the group in which outputting of the output information ends is changed to a smaller value (Peleg teaches this limitation, MPEP 2111.04) II. CONTINGENT LIMITATIONS, See Ex parte Schulhauser, [t]he Examiner did not need to present evidence of the method steps that are not required to be performed under a broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim).
Regarding claim 11, Peleg further discloses the control method wherein in a state where outputting of the output information is being performed, even when the score becomes equal to or less than the first threshold value, outputting of the output information is continued while the score is more than the second threshold value (Peleg teaches this limitation, see, MPEP 2111.04) II. CONTINGENT LIMITATIONS, Ex parte Schulhauser, [t]he Examiner did not need to present evidence of the method steps that are not required to be performed under a broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Rabinovits et al. (US 11609689) discloses controlling the display of an image stream.
Kono et al. (US 11170498) discloses image processing for detecting specific region captured by endoscope designated as detection target image.
Ngo Dinh et al. (US 11100633) disclose system and method for processing real time video from medical image device and detecting objects in the video.
Wakasugi et al. (US 10757125) discloses anomaly detection method.
Kasahara et al. (US 10685432) discloses determine whether abnormality is present based on the integrated score.
Hattori et al. (US 2020/0151877) discloses image diagnosis assisting apparatus.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DHAVAL V PATEL whose telephone number is (571)270-1818. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday (8:00am-4:30pm).
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, Hannah Wang can be reached at 571-272-9018. 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.
/DHAVAL V PATEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2631
Prosecution Insights