DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 11-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 11: Claim 11 recites "the output aspect." However, claim 1, from which claim 11 depends, no longer recites an "output aspect" following amendment. Accordingly, "the output aspect" lacks antecedent basis and renders claim 11 indefinite.
Claims 12–14: Claims 12–14 depend, directly or indirectly, from claim 11 and therefore incorporate the limitation reciting "the output aspect," which lacks antecedent basis as discussed above. Accordingly, claims 12–14 are indefinite.
Claim 15: Claim 15 recites "the second control." However, claim 1, from which claim 15 depends, no longer recites a "second control" following amendment. Accordingly, "the second control" lacks antecedent basis and renders claim 15 indefinite.
Claim 16: Claim 16 recites "the second control." However, claim 1, from which claim 16 depends, no longer recites a "second control" following amendment. Accordingly, "the second control" lacks antecedent basis and renders claim 16 indefinite.
Claim 17: Claim 17 depends from claim 16 and therefore incorporates the limitation reciting "the second control," which lacks antecedent basis as discussed above. Accordingly, claim 17 is indefinite.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4-11, 18-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Suzuki (JP2022142990A) in view of Staples (US 20200280761).
Regarding claim 1, Suzuki discloses a medical support device (pg. 3 FIG. 1 is a diagram showing an endoscope examination using an endoscope system and an examination support device according to the present embodiment) comprising:
a communication device (pg. 6 endoscope system 200 and the examination support apparatus 100 are connected via the connection cable 250, but wireless connection instead of wired connection may be used); and
a processor (pg. 3 The arithmetic processing unit 110 is a processor (CPU: Central Processing Unit) that performs control of the examination support apparatus 100 and program execution processing),
wherein the communication device is configured to transmit a first medical image to a processing apparatus communicably connected to the communication device via network (pg. 6 endoscope system 200 and the examination support apparatus 100 are connected via the connection cable 250, but wireless connection instead of wired connection may be used), and receive a processing result obtained by executing processing on the first medical image by the processing apparatus (pg. 6 Diagnosis unit 113 issues a progress display request for displaying notification window 123 to display control unit 114 in step S204. Then, in step S205, the analysis neural network 151 is used to perform diagnostic processing. After completing the diagnostic process, the diagnostic result is transferred to the display control unit 114).
Suzuki fails to teach where Staples teaches the processor is configured to perform a first control of displaying, on a screen, time information related to a time taken from transmission of the first medical image to the processing apparatus by the communication device to reception of the processing result (¶24 An “end-to-end latency” of a video stream can correspond to an elapsed time between light entering a camera and the corresponding image showing up on a display device; The end-to-end latency can be dependent on network infrastructure, as well as time spent in the camera (e.g., image capture, encoding, transmission onto an IP network), time spent in the client (e.g., reading from the IP network, buffering, decoding, and presentation on a display); ¶79 The same or other windows or screen portions can be used to simultaneously display other types of data (such as measured latency, alerts when the measured latency is outside acceptable limits, real-time and historical test data, and other information described herein)), and displaying, on the screen, at least one of the first medical image or a second medical image obtained temporally later than the first medical image, in a state in which the at least one of the first medical image or the second medical image is comparable with the time information (¶79 The changing image in the video frames or the video stream can be provided in a separate graphical window or screen portion for presentation on the display device, and the position and the dimensions of the image, window or screen portion can be adjusted or calibrated to facilitate video capture by one or more cameras. The same or other windows or screen portions can be used to simultaneously display other types of data (such as measured latency, alerts when the measured latency is outside acceptable limits, real-time and historical test data, and other information described herein)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have implemented the teaching of the processor is configured to perform a first control of displaying, on a screen, time information related to a time taken from transmission of the first medical image to the processing apparatus by the communication device to reception of the processing result, and displaying, on the screen, at least one of the first medical image or a second medical image obtained temporally later than the first medical image, in a state in which the at least one of the first medical image or the second medical image is comparable with the time information from Staples into the medical support device, including medical images, as disclosed by Suzuki. The motivation for doing this is to improve efficiency in time and labor-intensive tasks, particularly in video management systems.
Regarding claim 4, Suzuki and Staples discloses the medical support device according to claim 1, wherein the time information includes first specifying information for specifying the time itself (Staples ¶79 The same or other windows or screen portions can be used to simultaneously display other types of data (such as measured latency, alerts when the measured latency is outside acceptable limits, real-time and historical test data, and other information described herein); see Figs. 7-10 e.g. latency shows time information). The motivation to combine the references is discussed above in the rejection for claim 1.
Regarding claim 5, Suzuki and Staples discloses the medical support device according to claim 1, wherein the time information includes second specifying information for specifying a difference between the time and a first reference time (Staples ¶79 The same or other windows or screen portions can be used to simultaneously display other types of data (such as measured latency, alerts when the measured latency is outside acceptable limits, real-time and historical test data, and other information described herein); see Figs. 7-10 e.g. latency shows time information, wherein latency is a difference between the time and a first reference time). The motivation to combine the references is discussed above in the rejection for claim 1.
Regarding claim 6, Suzuki and Staples discloses the medical support device according to claim 5, wherein the second specifying information includes length information for specifying a length of the time with respect to the first reference time (Staples ¶79 The same or other windows or screen portions can be used to simultaneously display other types of data (such as measured latency, alerts when the measured latency is outside acceptable limits, real-time and historical test data, and other information described herein); see Figs. 7-10 e.g. latency shows time information, wherein latency is a length of the time with respect to the first reference time). The motivation to combine the references is discussed above in the rejection for claim 1.
Regarding claim 7, Suzuki and Staples discloses the medical support device according to claim 1, wherein the time information is visualized information (Staples ¶79 The same or other windows or screen portions can be used to simultaneously display other types of data (such as measured latency, alerts when the measured latency is outside acceptable limits, real-time and historical test data, and other information described herein); see Figs. 7-10 e.g. latency shows time information). The motivation to combine the references is discussed above in the rejection for claim 1.
Regarding claim 8, Suzuki and Staples discloses the medical support device according to claim 7, wherein the time information is information visualized by a text, a mark, or any combination thereof (Staples ¶79 The same or other windows or screen portions can be used to simultaneously display other types of data (such as measured latency, alerts when the measured latency is outside acceptable limits, real-time and historical test data, and other information described herein); see Figs. 7-10 e.g. latency shows time information). The motivation to combine the references is discussed above in the rejection for claim 1.
Regarding claim 9, Suzuki and Staples discloses the medical support device according to claim 7, wherein the processor changes a visualization format, which is a format in which the time information is visualized, according to the time (Staples ¶79 the same or other windows or screen portions can be used to simultaneously display other types of data (such as measured latency, alerts when the measured latency is outside acceptable limits, real-time and historical test data, and other information described herein); wherein an alert is interpreted as a change of visualization format). The motivation to combine the references is discussed above in the rejection for claim 1.
Regarding claim 10, Suzuki and Staples discloses the medical support device according to claim 9, wherein the processor is configured to make visibility of the time information in a case where the time is equal to or longer than a second reference time higher than visibility of the time information in a case where the time is shorter than the second reference time (Staples ¶79 the same or other windows or screen portions can be used to simultaneously display other types of data (such as measured latency, alerts when the measured latency is outside acceptable limits, real-time and historical test data, and other information described herein); wherein an alert is interpreted as a high visibility). The motivation to combine the references is discussed above in the rejection for claim 1.
Regarding claim 11, Suzuki and Staples discloses the medical support device according to claim 1, wherein the output aspect is a display aspect in which the processor displays the processing result on a third screen (Suzuki pg. 4 The signal reproduced image 225 includes the captured image 221 and examination information 222; It can be said that the captured image 121 is substantially an image obtained by reproducing the captured image captured by the camera unit 210 by the inspection support apparatus 100).
Regarding claim 18, Suzuki and Staples discloses the medical support device according to claim 1, wherein the processing is an AI process for the first medical image (Suzuki Fig. 1 & pg. 3 Auxiliary diagnostic information 122, which is the diagnostic result generated from the output of the analysis neural network).
Regarding claim 19, Suzuki and Staples discloses the medical support device according to claim 1, wherein the processing includes a recognition process of recognizing a feature region shown in the first medical image (Suzuki pg. 4 The analysis neural network 151 is a trained model that, when inputting image data captured by the camera unit 210, calculates the probability that a lesion exists in the image).
Regarding claim 20, Suzuki and Staples discloses the medical support device according to claim 19, wherein the feature region is a lesion (Suzuki pg. 4 The analysis neural network 151 is a trained model that, when inputting image data captured by the camera unit 210, calculates the probability that a lesion exists in the image).
Regarding claim 21, Suzuki and Staples discloses the medical support device according to claim 1, wherein the first medical image is an endoscopic image generated by imaging an inside of a body by a camera mounted on an endoscope (Suzuki pg. 3 The endoscope system 200 includes a camera unit 210. As shown, the camera unit 210 is inserted from the oral cavity of a lying subject into an internal organ such as the stomach, and receives an image signal of an image of the inside of the organ. is sent to the system main unit.).
Regarding claim 22, Suzuki and Staples discloses an endoscope apparatus comprising: the medical support device according to claim 1 (see rejection above for claim 1); and a camera that is inserted into a body and generates the first medical image by imaging an inside of the body (Suzuki pg. 3 The endoscope system 200 includes a camera unit 210. As shown, the camera unit 210 is inserted from the oral cavity of a lying subject into an internal organ such as the stomach, and receives an image signal of an image of the inside of the organ. is sent to the system main unit.).
Regarding claim 23, Suzuki discloses an medical support system (pg. 3 FIG. 1 is a diagram showing an endoscope examination using an endoscope system and an examination support device according to the present embodiment) comprising:
a medical support device (pg. 3 FIG. 1 is a diagram showing an endoscope examination using an endoscope system and an examination support device according to the present embodiment); and
a processing apparatus communicably connected to the medical support device via the network (pg. 3 The arithmetic processing unit 110 is a processor (CPU: Central Processing Unit) that performs control of the examination support apparatus 100 and program execution processing; pg. 6 endoscope system 200 and the examination support apparatus 100 are connected via the connection cable 250, but wireless connection instead of wired connection may be used),
wherein the medical support device is configured to transmit a first medical image to the processing apparatus (pg. 6 Diagnosis unit 113 issues a progress display request for displaying notification window 123 to display control unit 114 in step S204. Then, in step S205, the analysis neural network 151 is used to perform diagnostic processing. After completing the diagnostic process, the diagnostic result is transferred to the display control unit 114),
the processing apparatus is configured to execute processing on the first medical image and transmit a processing result obtained by executing the processing to the medical support device (pg. 6 Diagnosis unit 113 issues a progress display request for displaying notification window 123 to display control unit 114 in step S204. Then, in step S205, the analysis neural network 151 is used to perform diagnostic processing. After completing the diagnostic process, the diagnostic result is transferred to the display control unit 114), and
the medical support device is configured to receive the processing result transmitted from the processing apparatus (pg. 6 After completing the diagnostic process, the diagnostic result is transferred to the display control unit 114),
Suzuki fails to teach where Staples teaches perform a first control of displaying, on a screen, time information related to a time taken from transmission of the first medical image to the processing apparatus to reception of the processing result by the medical support device (¶24 An “end-to-end latency” of a video stream can correspond to an elapsed time between light entering a camera and the corresponding image showing up on a display device; The end-to-end latency can be dependent on network infrastructure, as well as time spent in the camera (e.g., image capture, encoding, transmission onto an IP network), time spent in the client (e.g., reading from the IP network, buffering, decoding, and presentation on a display); ¶79 The same or other windows or screen portions can be used to simultaneously display other types of data (such as measured latency, alerts when the measured latency is outside acceptable limits, real-time and historical test data, and other information described herein)), and displaying, on the screen, at least one of the first medical image or a second medical image obtained temporally later than the first medical image, in a state in which the at least one of the first medical image or the second medical image is comparable with the time information (¶79 The changing image in the video frames or the video stream can be provided in a separate graphical window or screen portion for presentation on the display device, and the position and the dimensions of the image, window or screen portion can be adjusted or calibrated to facilitate video capture by one or more cameras. The same or other windows or screen portions can be used to simultaneously display other types of data (such as measured latency, alerts when the measured latency is outside acceptable limits, real-time and historical test data, and other information described herein)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have implemented the teaching of perform a first control of displaying, on a screen, time information related to a time taken from transmission of the first medical image to the processing apparatus to reception of the processing result by the medical support device, and displaying, on the screen, at least one of the first medical image or a second medical image obtained temporally later than the first medical image, in a state in which the at least one of the first medical image or the second medical image is comparable with the time information from Staples into the medical support system, including medical images, as disclosed by Suzuki. The motivation for doing this is to improve efficiency in time and labor-intensive tasks, particularly in video management systems.
Regarding claim(s) 24 (drawn to a method):
The rejection/proposed combination of Suzuki and Staples, explained in the rejection of device claim(s) 1, anticipates/renders obvious the steps of the method of claim(s) 24 because these steps occur in the operation of the proposed combination as discussed above. Thus, the arguments similar to that presented above for claim(s) 24 is/are equally applicable to claim(s) 1.
Regarding claim(s) 25 (drawn to a CRM):
The rejection/proposed combination of Suzuki and Staples, explained in the rejection of device claim(s) 1, anticipates/renders obvious the steps of the computer readable medium of claim(s) 25 because these steps occur in the operation of the proposed combination as discussed above. Thus, the arguments similar to that presented above for claim(s) 1 is/are equally applicable to claim(s) 25.
5. Claim(s) 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki and Staples as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Takahashi et al (US 20160110921).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Suzuki and Staples disclose the medical support device according to claim 11, but fail to teach where Takahashi teaches wherein the display aspect includes a first display aspect and a second display aspect, the first display aspect is used in a case where the time is equal to or longer than a third reference time and is used to specify that the time is equal to or longer than the third reference time, and the second display aspect is used in a case where the time is shorter than the third reference time and is used to specify that the time is shorter than the third reference time (Takahashi ¶35 in a case where the virtual image including the virtual object in a second display aspect is formed prior to formation of the virtual image including the virtual object in the first display aspect, in response to a continuous focusing operation on either in the virtual object in the second display aspect or the real object during the reference time period, the augmented reality processing unit may cause the virtual image including the virtual object in the first display aspect to be formed).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have implemented the teaching of wherein the display aspect includes a first display aspect and a second display aspect, the first display aspect is used in a case where the time is equal to or longer than a third reference time and is used to specify that the time is equal to or longer than the third reference time, and the second display aspect is used in a case where the time is shorter than the third reference time and is used to specify that the time is shorter than the third reference time from Takahashi into the device as disclosed by the combination of Suzuki and Staples. The motivation for doing this is to improve processing and displaying of images.
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Suzuki, Staples and Takahashi disclose the medical support device according to claim 12, wherein the second display aspect has higher visibility than the first display aspect (Takahashi ¶35 a degree of the visibility hindrance of the virtual object in the second display aspect for the real object may be lower than a degree of the visibility hindrance of the virtual object in the first display aspect for the real object). The motivation to combine the references is discussed above in the rejection for claim 12.
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Suzuki, Staples and Takahashi disclose the medical support device according to claim 13, wherein the processing result is not displayed in the first display aspect, and the processing result is displayed in the second display aspect (Suzuki pg. 5 Even if the diagnosis unit 113 starts diagnosis processing at time t 2 and ends at time t 3 and hands over the diagnosis result to the display control unit 114, the display control unit 114 detects the still image at the time ( Substantially, if a preset retention time (for example, 3 seconds) has not elapsed from time t 1 ), the system waits as it is. Then, when reaching time t 4 when the holding time has passed, it is confirmed that the frame image generated at time t 4 is a still image by the detection unit 112, and the display on the display monitor 120 is displayed live. to display diagnostic results).
Claim(s) 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki and Staples as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Takahashi et al (US 20230165546, hereinafter Takahashi-Canon).
Regarding claim 15, Suzuki and Staples discloses the medical support device according to claim 11, but fails to teach where Takahashi-Canon discloses wherein the second control includes a control of displaying at least one of the first medical image or a third medical image obtained temporally later than the first medical image on a fourth screen, in a state in which at least one of the first medical image or the third medical image is comparable with the processing result (¶73 after the second stent ST2 is placed, the process at step S307 may be performed for a predetermined time period, before the device display process ends; ¶75 on the basis of the plurality of first X-ray images and the first biological information; and to cause the display 109 to display the device information related to the first device so as to be superimposed on the second X-ray image, by using the result of the associating process and the time phase in the second biological information).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have implemented the teaching of wherein the second control includes a control of displaying at least one of the first medical image or a third medical image obtained temporally later than the first medical image on a fourth screen, in a state in which at least one of the first medical image or the third medical image is comparable with the processing result from Takahashi-Canon into the medical support device as disclosed by Suzuki and Staples. The motivation for doing this is to alleviate difficulties in manipulations caused by temporal movements of a site of interest.
Regarding claim 16, Suzuki and Staples discloses the medical support device according to claim 11, but fails to teach where Takahashi-Canon discloses wherein the second control includes a control of displaying the first medical image on a fourth screen in a state in which the first medical image is comparable with the processing result in a case where the time is shorter than a fourth reference time (Takahashi-Canon ¶73 after the second stent ST2 is placed, the process at step S307 may be performed for a predetermined time period, before the device display process ends; ¶75 on the basis of the plurality of first X-ray images and the first biological information; and to cause the display 109 to display the device information related to the first device so as to be superimposed on the second X-ray image, by using the result of the associating process and the time phase in the second biological information).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have implemented the teaching of wherein the second control includes a control of displaying the first medical image on a fourth screen in a state in which the first medical image is comparable with the processing result in a case where the time is shorter than a fourth reference time from Takahashi-Canon into the medical support device as disclosed by Suzuki and Staples. The motivation for doing this is to alleviate difficulties in manipulations caused by temporal movements of a site of interest.
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Suzuki, Staples and Takahashi-Canon disclose the medical support device according to claim 16, wherein the fourth reference time is obtained in advance by a test using an actual device, a computer simulation, or a combination thereof, as a longest time for which the content of the first medical image and the content of the processing result are consistent with each other (Staples ¶27 The end-to-end latency of the video stream can be measured by subtracting the difference in time between a time value of when a video frame is presented and a time value of when the video frame is received by the computer system; A number of measurements for each of the different types of latency can be taken to determine a minimum, maximum and/or average measured latency). The motivation to combine the references is discussed above in the rejection for claim 1.
Examiner’s Comments
The Office has established numerous rejections under 35 USC 112(a) and/or 112(b) with regard to claims 11-17. The scope of claims 11-17 cannot be determined because of the identified issues presented above. The numerous rejections to claims 11-17 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and/or 112(b) render applicant's claims as being so incomprehensible as to preclude a reasonably detailed search of the prior art by the examiner, and thus the previous rejection to claims 11-17 are maintained. The examiner has attempted to identify all grounds for rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and/or 112(b). However, the number of issues with regard to claims 11-17 is so numerous that the scope of the claims cannot be ascertained. The examiner suggests that the applicant carefully review the claims in order to fix any and all issues that have and have not been highlighted by this office action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 4-25 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 KEVIN KY whose telephone number is (571)272-7648. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9-5PM.
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, Vincent Rudolph can be reached at 571-272-8243. 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.
/KEVIN KY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2671
Prosecution Insights