DETAILED ACTION
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show the details in the boxes as described in the specification. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Interpretations - 35 USC § 112(f)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as "configured to" or "so that"; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
An encoder , a combiner in claim 1-10;
A localizer in claim 10.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth para.
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 9 and 10 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 9 recite the limitations in claim 18, however claim 18 does not exist. For purpose of applying art, it is interpreted as claim the limitation1 in claim 1.
Claims 9 and 10 recite “The aArrangement … “. This appears to be a typo, and is interpreted as “The arrangement…”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(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) 1-6, 9-10, 12, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Vianu ( US 20200334809, cited from IDS).
Regarding claim 1, Vianu teaches a machine learning arrangement for processing medical data, comprising a pre-processor component and a machine learning system,
wherein the pre-processor component comprises:
at least one input interface for receiving a human user generated initial finding for a patient and a medical image to which the said finding pertains ( 14, 140, 142 in FIG.1; 424 in FIG. 4B) ;
an encoder for encoding the finding and the medical image into encoded data, including encoded image data and encoded finding data ( 512, 514 in FIG. 5);
a combiner for combining the encoded finding and the encoded image data into combined encoded data( 540 in FIG. 5);
an output interface for providing the combined encoded data to the machine learning system (550a-550d in FIG. 5), and
wherein the machine learning system includes a machine learning model configured to transform the combined encoded output into output data that is indicative of at least one second finding, the at least one second finding being an alternative to the initial finding, wherein the at least one alternative finding indicating a condition or disease(532, 534 in FIG. 5), and wherein the arrangement causes the at least one alternative finding to be brought to the attention of the user(550a-550d in FIG. 5).
Regarding claim 2, Vianu teaches the arrangement of claim 1, wherein the input interface is configured to receive contextual data( 14, 140, 142 in FIG.1; 424 in FIG. 4B), providing context information in relation to the report and/or the image, the encoder is configured to encode at least a part of the contextual data into the encoded data( 512, 514 in FIG. 5), and the combiner is configure to combine the encoded contextual data with the image( 540 in FIG. 5) and the encoded report to obtain the combined data(550a-550d in FIG. 5).
Regarding claim 3, Vianu teaches the arrangement of claim 1, wherein the contextual data includes at least one of: i) the patient history([0207], one or more clinical references such as patient age, weight, history (e.g., of previous related pathologies) can be added to any of the machine learning networks and architectures), ii) an imaging request for the image, iii) statistical data in relation to misdiagnosis.
Regarding claim 4, Vianu teaches the arrangement of claim 1, any one of the previous claims, wherein the combiner and/or the encoder is implemented as a respective machine learning model([0208], One or more of the components of the aforementioned machine learning networks discussed with respect to FIGS. 5-7 can be configured to additionally calculate and output uncertainties along with its predictions).
Regarding claim 5, Vianu teaches the arrangement of claim 4, wherein the machine learning model for the encoder includes a processing channel configured for recurrent processing([0155], components, and/or layers of the machine learning network 500 (also referred to herein as the “ML network”) can be provided as recurrent networks; [0164], the first encoder network 512, FNLP, can be of recurrent form.).
Regarding claim 6, Vianu teaches the arrangement of claim 5, wherein the processing channel is configured to process at least the encoded patient history([0207], one or more clinical references such as patient age, weight, history (e.g., of previous related pathologies) can be added to any of the machine learning networks and architectures).
Regarding claim 9, Vianu teaches the aArrangement of claim 1 ( 18),wherein the output includes a natural textual string( [0187], FNLP … outputs one or more embeddings for pathologies and/or diagnosis information within the report text) or a medical finding code.
Regarding claim 10, Vianu teaches the aArrangement of claim 9, further comprising a localizer configured to map the output data to an image location in the image([0187], FIMI receives as input radiological image regions 424 (corresponding to report text 422) and outputs one or more features for pathologies within the image.)
Claim 12 recites the method in the arrangement of claim 1, thus also is rejected.
Claim 15 recites the medium for the method in claim 12. Since Vianu also teaches a medium ( 806, 808, 810 in FIG. 8), claim 15 is also rejected.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JIANGENG SUN whose telephone number is (571)272-3712. The examiner can normally be reached 8am to 5pm, EST, M-F.
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, Randolph Vincent 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.
JIANGENG SUN
Examiner
Art Unit 2661
/Jiangeng Sun/Examiner, Art Unit 2671
Prosecution Insights