DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 8-10, filed 7/16/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-18 under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Gurson et al (US 2020/0160982 A1) and Mentis et al (US 2016/0210411 A1).
Response to Amendment
The amendment submitted 7/16/2026 has been accepted and entered. Claims 1, 17, 18 are amended. No claims are cancelled. New claim 19 is added. Thus, claims 1-19 are examined.
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)(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.
Claim(s) 1-13, 15-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Gurson et al (US 2020/0160982 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Gurson et al discloses an information processing apparatus comprising at least one processor, wherein the processor is configured to: acquire a series of radiation images captured by performing continuous irradiation with radiation (paragraphs [0050]; acquire relevant information that is generated by recognizing a voice uttered before an end of the continuous irradiation with the radiation (speech-to-text software) (paragraph [0071]), and is related to imaging content of the series of radiation images; and associate the series of radiation images with the relevant information set of images and functions to present annotations of the overlay at appropriate regions of the images (paragraphs [0055], [0057], [0070]).
Regarding claim 2, Gurson et al discloses wherein the processor is configured to associate the latest relevant information acquired before a predetermined timing synchronized with the capturing of the series of radiation images with the series of radiation images (dynamically labels associated with findings) (paragraph [0056]).
Regarding claim 3, Gurson et al discloses wherein the predetermined timing is a timing of start of irradiation with the radiation that is continuously performed in the capturing of the series of radiation images (paragraph [0092]).
Regarding claim 4, Gurson et al discloses wherein the predetermined timing is confirmed by receiving a radiation switch signal, which is transmitted by a user input unit and indicates the start of irradiation that is continuously performed in the capturing of the series of radiation images (initiated automatically or any suitable trigger) (paragraph [0092]).
Regarding claim 5, Gurson et al discloses wherein the processor is configured to generate a data file (database) including the relevant information and image group data including the series of radiation images (paragraph [0046]).
Regarding claim 6, Gurson et al discloses wherein the processor includes a notation corresponding to the relevant information in a file name of a data file including the series of radiation images (paragraphs [0064]-[0070]).
Regarding claim 7, Gurson et al discloses wherein the processor is configured to process image group data including the series of radiation images so that a notation corresponding to the relevant information is displayed together with the series of radiation images (paragraphs [0064]-[0070]).
Regarding claim 8, Gurson et al discloses wherein the processor is configured to associate, in a case in which new relevant information generated by recognizing a voice uttered during an imaging period of the series of radiation images is acquired (speech-to-text software) (paragraph [0071]), the new relevant information with a radiation image acquired after the acquisition of the new relevant information from among the series of radiation images (paragraphs [0055]-[0057], [0070]).
Regarding claim 9, Gurson et al discloses wherein the processor is configured to display a radiation image associated with designated relevant information from among the series of radiation images (paragraphs [0018]-[0021]).
Regarding claim 10, Gurson et al discloses wherein the processor is configured to: acquire relevant information generated by a method other than voice recognition (S170) can be performed in absence of a voice recognition platform); and replace the relevant information generated by the voice recognition with the relevant information generated by the method other than the voice recognition (paragraphs [0061]-[0063], [0093]-[0094]).
Regarding claim 11, Gurson et al discloses wherein the processor is configured to issue an alert in a case in which the relevant information associated with the series of radiation images does not include specific information (paragraph [0067]).
Regarding claim 12, Gurson et al discloses wherein the relevant information is information indicating a type of sample used in an examination using the series of radiation images (paragraph [0034]).
Regarding claim 13, Gurson et al discloses wherein the relevant information is information indicating a type of posture of an examinee in an examination using the series of radiation images (paragraph [0026]).
Regarding claim 15, Gurson et al discloses wherein the relevant information is information indicating a type of imaging direction of the series of radiation images (paragraph [0026]).
Regarding claim 16, Gurson et al discloses wherein the relevant information is generated by recognizing a voice by which a predetermined term is pronounced (voice and/or speech recognition platform) (paragraph [0023]).
Regarding claim 17, Gurson et al discloses an information processing method executed by at least one processor included in an information processing apparatus, the information processing method comprising: acquiring a series of radiation images captured by performing continuous irradiation with radiation (paragraphs [0050]); acquiring relevant information that is generated by recognizing a voice uttered before an end of the continuous irradiation with the radiation (speech-to-text software) (paragraph [0071]), and is related to imaging content of the series of radiation images; and associating the series of radiation images with the relevant information (paragraphs [0055], [0057], [0070]).
Regarding claim 18, Gurson et al discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a program for causing at least one processor included in an information processing apparatus to execute: acquiring a series of radiation images captured by performing continuous irradiation with radiation (paragraphs [0050]); acquiring relevant information that is generated by recognizing a voice uttered before an end of the continuous irradiation with the radiation (speech-to-text software) (paragraph [0071]), and is related to imaging content of the series of radiation images; and associating the series of radiation images with the relevant information (paragraphs [0055], [0057], [0070]).
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) 14, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gurson et al (US 2020/0160982 A1) in view of Mentis et al (US 2016/0210411 A1).
Regarding claim 14 Gurson et al discloses all of the limitations of claim 12, as described above however, Gurson et al is silent with regards to examination is a videofluoroscopic examination as claimed. Mentis et al discloses an annotation of endoscopic video using gesture and voice commands, comprising: wherein the examination is a videofluoroscopic examination of swallowing (endoscopic video) (paragraph [0013]). Thus, it would have been obvious to modify Weiss et al with the teaching of Mentis, so as to enable a versatile apparatus to analyze swallowing process.
Regarding claim 19 Gurson et al discloses all of the limitations of independent claim 1, as described above however, Gurson et al is silent with regards to examination level in a videofluoroscopic examination as claimed. Mentis et al discloses an annotation of endoscopic video using gesture and voice commands, comprising: wherein the examination is a videofluoroscopic examination of swallowing (endoscopic video) (paragraph [0013]). Thus, it would have been obvious to modify Weiss et al with the teaching of Mentis, so as to enable a versatile apparatus to analyze swallowing process.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FANI POLYZOS BOOSALIS whose telephone number is (571)272-2447. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30-3:30 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, Uzma Alam can be reached at Uzma.Alam@USPTO.GOV. 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.
/F.P.B./Examiner, Art Unit 2884
/UZMA ALAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2884
Prosecution Insights