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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
A telephone called made to Mr. Jonathan Feuchtwang (Reg. No. 41,017) at the telephone number (650-850-1253) on 09/15/2025, for election restriction of distinct invention of Groups I (Claim 15) and II (Claims 16-31) which indicated below. Applicant's election without traverse of Group II (claims 16-31) is acknowledged.
I. Claim 15, are drawn to method of integrating image analysis, classified in class 707, subclass 696.
II. Claims 16-24, are drawn to a method of updating a knowledge representation of machine learning model, classified in class 707, subclass 690.
The inventions are distinct, each from the other because of the following reasons:
Inventions I, II are related as combination and subcombination. Inventions in this relationship are distinct if it can be shown that (1) the combination as claimed does not require the particulars of the subcombination as claimed for patentability, and (2) that the subcombination has utility by itself or in other combinations (MPEP § 806.05(c)). In the instant case, the combination as claimed does not require the particulars of the subcombination as claimed because the subcombination in Group II further particularly comprises sequence of machine learning models and training weight of training samples. The subcombination has separate usage such training weight of training samples.
The examiner has required restriction between subcombinations usable together. Where applicant elects a subcombination and claims thereto are subsequently found allowable, any claim(s) depending from or otherwise requiring all the limitations of the allowable subcombination will be examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. See MPEP § 821.04(a). Applicant is advised that if any claim presented in a continuation or divisional application is anticipated by, or includes all the limitations of, a claim that is allowable in the present application, such claim may be subject to provisional statutory and/or nonstatutory double patenting rejections over the claims of the instant application.
3. Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all these inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply:
(a) the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art in view of their different classification;
(b) the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art due to their recognized divergent subject matter;
(c) the inventions require a different field of search (for example, searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search queries);
(d) the prior art applicable to one invention would not likely be applicable to another invention;
(e) the inventions are likely to raise different non-prior art issues under 35 U.S.C. 101 and/or 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph.
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of a invention to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected invention.
The election of an invention may be made with or without traverse. To reserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable on the elected invention.
If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
4. Applicant is reminded that upon the cancellation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be amended in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(b) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. Any amendment of inventorship must be accompanied by a request under 37 CFR 1.48(b) and by the fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
This Office Action is in response to the application filed on 08/30/2024.
Claims 16-31 are pending.
Claims 1-15 are cancelled.
Drawings
The drawings filed on 08/30/2024 are accepted.
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular columns, paragraphs, figures 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 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.
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 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 –
(b) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of application for patent in the United States.
Claims 16-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Moehrle et al. (US PGPUB 2019/0220978, hereinafter Moehrle).
As per as claim 16, Moehrle discloses:
(New) A method for progressively updating a knowledge representation, said method comprising a sequence of machine learning models ML_t, where ML_{t+1} is trained later in time than ML_t, each model ML_t trained based on a set of training data D_t consisting of training samples s_{t,i} with respective training weights w_{t,i}, each sample s_{t,i} that is similar to a sample s_{t-1,k} having a reduced weight w_{t,i} < < w_{t-1,k}, and samples with updated outcome having an increased weight W {t,i} > w_{t-1,k} (Moehrle, e.g., [0093], “…a sequence of machine learning models ML_t, where ML_{t+1} is trained later in time than ML_t, each model ML_t trained based on a set of training data D_t consisting of training samples s_{t,i} with respective training weights w_{t,i}. Each sample s_{t,i} that is similar to a sample s having a reduced weight w_{t,i}<w_{t−1, k}, and samples with updated outcome having an increased weight w_{t,i}>w_{t−1, k}…”).
As per as claim 17, Moehrle discloses:
The method of claim 16, A method for integrating image analysis, longitudinal
tracking of a region of interest and updating of a knowledge representation, said method comprising the steps of:
retrieving an image representation of a sample structure from an image database (Moehrle, e.g., [0082-0083], “…retrieved image representations of sample structures…”);
automatically selecting a generic structure from a database based on an imaging modality of the sample structure, at least one knowledge representation stored in a second database, said knowledge representation being associated with said selected generic structure, the knowledge representation being specific to the imaging modality (Moehrle, e.g., [abstract], [0012], [0028], “… automatically selecting a generic structure from among a plurality of generic structures is based on the imaging modality and a comparison of content of the sample structure to the content of the generic structure …”);
mapping the selected generic structure to the sample structure (Moehrle, e.g., [0013], [0083], “… mapping the selected generic structure to the sample structure…”);
automatically determining at least one region of interest within the sample
structure or allowing the user to select a region of interest (Moehrle, e.g., [0014], “…automatically determining at least one region of interest within the sample structure or allowing the user to select a region of interest…”);
automatically selecting at least one diagnostic finding or allowing the user to select at least one diagnostic finding from a focused set knowledge representations (Moehrle, e.g., [0015], “automatically selecting at least one diagnostic finding or allowing the user to select at least one diagnostic finding from a focused set knowledge representations”);
retrievably storing the at least one diagnostic finding in the electronic record (Moehrle, e.g., [0016], “retrievably storing the at least one diagnostic finding in an electronic record”); and
monitoring the electronic record for changes to the at least one diagnostic finding or new diagnostic findings and using such changes or new diagnostic findings to update the knowledge representation in the second database (Moehrle, e.g., [0017], “monitoring the electronic record for changes to the at least one diagnostic finding or new diagnostic findings and using such changes or new diagnostic findings to update the knowledge representation in the second database”).
As per as claim 18, Moehrle discloses:
The method of claim 17, wherein the step of allowing the user to select at least one diagnostic finding from the focused set of knowledge representation includes allowing the user to enter the at least one diagnostic finding using free-form text (Moehrle, e.g., [0018]).
As per as claim 19, Moehrle discloses:
The method of claim 17, wherein the selected generic structure is related to the
sample structure by imaging modality and one or more attributes selected from the group (size, dimensions, area, shape, volume, weight, density, location, anatomical organ, and orientation) (Moehrle, e.g., [0019]).
As per as claim 20, Moehrle discloses:
The method of claim 17, wherein the selected generic structure has coordinate data defined therein (Moehrle, e.g., [0020]).
As per as claim 21, Moehrle discloses:
The method of claim 17, wherein the knowledge representation is specific to an
anatomical organ in which the region of interest is located and the imaging modality (Moehrle, e.g., [0023]).
As per as claim 22, Moehrle discloses:
The method of claim 20, further comprising:
using the coordinate data to generate natural language statements describing a location of the region of interest in the anatomy (Moehrle, e.g., [0027]);
automatically generating a diagnostic report based on the at least one diagnostic finding, and including the natural language statements describing the location of the region of interest in the anatomy (Moehrle, e.g., [0027-0028]); and
storing the diagnostic report in the electronic record (Moehrle, e.g., [0027-0028]).
As per as claim 23, Moehrle discloses:
The method of claim 17, wherein the step of automatically selecting a generic
structure is based on the imaging modality and a comparison of content of the sample structure to the content of the generic structure (Moehrle, e.g., [0027-0028]).
As per as claim 24, Moehrle discloses:
The method of claim 17, further comprising:
for each at least one region of interest automatically selecting follow-up care or allowing the user to select from a focused set of follow-up care options; and storing the selected follow-up care in the electronic record (Moehrle, e.g., [0029]).
As per as claim 25, Moehrle discloses:
The method of claim 24, wherein the step of monitoring the electronic record includes checking for changes to the selected follow-up care and using such changes to update the knowledge representation in the second database (Moehrle, e.g., [0031]).
As per as claim 26, Moehrle discloses:
The method of claim 17, wherein the step of monitoring the electronic record includes checking for changes to treatment outcome and using such changes to update the knowledge representation in the second database (Moehrle, e.g., [0032]).
As per as claim 27, Moehrle discloses:
The method of claim 16, further comprising the steps of:
retrieving an image representation of a sample structure depicting at least a portion of an anatomical organ from an image database (Moehrle, e.g., [0034]);
determining at least one region of interest within the sample structure or allowing the user to select a region of interest (Moehrle, e.g., [0035]);
automatically selecting at least one diagnostic finding or allowing the user to select at least one diagnostic finding from a focused set of knowledge representations stored in a database, the specific focused set of knowledge representations being specific to the anatomical organ and an imaging modality used to capture the image representation (Moehrle, e.g., [0036]);
retrievably storing the at least one diagnostic finding in the electronic record (Moehrle, e.g., [0037]);
monitoring the electronic record for changes and/or additions to the at least one diagnostic finding and updating the knowledge representation to reflect the changes and/or additions to the at least one diagnostic finding (Moehrle, e.g., [0038]).
As per as claim 28, Moehrle discloses:
The method of claim 27, wherein the step of monitoring the electronic record includes checking for changes to treatment outcome and using such changes to update the knowledge representation in the database (Moehrle, e.g., [0038]).
As per as claim 29, Moehrle discloses:
The method of claim 16, further comprising the steps of:
recording at least one diagnostic finding for a given region of interest in an
electronic record (Moehrle, e.g., [0040]);
monitoring the electronic record for changes to the at least one diagnostic finding for the region of interest (Moehrle, e.g., [0041]); and
automatically updating a knowledge representation stored in a database to reflect the changes to the at least one diagnostic finding for the region of interest (Moehrle, e.g., [0042]).
As per as claim 30, Moehrle discloses:
The method of claim 29, further comprising:
retrieving an image representation of sample structure depicting at least a portion of an anatomical organ from an image database (Moehrle, e.g., [0044]);
automatically determining at least one region of interest within the sample
structure or allowing the user to select a region of interest (Moehrle, e.g., [0045]);
automatically selecting at least one diagnostic finding or allowing the user to select at least one diagnostic finding from a focused set of knowledge representations specific to at least one of the anatomical organ and an imaging modality used to capture the image representation (Moehrle, e.g., [0046]); and
retrievably storing the at least one diagnostic finding in the electronic record (Moehrle, e.g., [0047]).
As per as claim 31, Moehrle discloses:
The method of claim 29, wherein the step of monitoring the electronic record includes checking for changes to treatment outcome and using such changes to update the knowledge representation in the database (Moehrle, e.g., [0032]).
Additional Art Considered
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to the Applicants’ disclosure.
The following patents and papers are cited to further show the state of the art at the time of Applicants’ invention with respect to integrating image analysis, longitudinal tracking of a region of interest and updating of a knowledge representation, said method comprising the steps of: retrieving an image representation of a sample structure from an image database; automatically selecting a generic structure from a database containing a plurality of generic structures based on an imaging modality of the sample structure.
a. Kangarloo et al. (US PGPUB 2009/0228299, hereinafter Kangarloo); “Method and Apparatus For Context Sensitive Telemedicine” discloses “context-sensitive medical communication which patient presentation data is obtained, the patient presentation data is mapped to biological system data, wherein the biological system data are obtained by a population-based comparison, and a relevance-driven summary is generated”.
Kangarloo further teaches mapping the patient presentation to a standard nomenclature; generating a list of relevant anatomical structures based on the patient presentation; delineate known anatomical structures; generating a relevance-driven summary by combining relevant structures and delineated contours [0013].
Kangarloo also teaches weighted echo planar images wherein the corrected images show good alignment with the anatomical T2 images as confirmed by the superimposed contours [0021-0022].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TUAN A PHAM whose telephone number is (571)270-3173. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:45 AM - 6:30 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, Tony Mahmoudi can be reached on 571-272-4078. 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.
/TUAN A PHAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2163
Prosecution Insights