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 Status
Claims 1-22 are pending.
Priority
This application claims priority from Japanese Patent Application No. 2023-150728, filed on September 19, 2023.
Information Disclosure Statement
The IDS filed 09/12/24, 12/20/24, 06/18/25, and 11/10/25 have been considered.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
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.
35 U.S.C. 101 requires that a claimed invention must fall within one of the four eligible categories of invention (i.e. process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter) and must not be directed to subject matter encompassing a judicially recognized exception as interpreted by the courts. MPEP 2106. Three categories of subject matter are found to be judicially recognized exceptions to 35 U.S.C. § 101 (i.e. patent ineligible) (1) laws of nature, (2) physical phenomena, and (3) abstract ideas. MPEP 2106(II). To be patent-eligible, a claim directed to a judicial exception must as whole be integrated into a practical application or directed to significantly more than the exception itself (MPEP 2106). Hence, the claim must describe a process or product that applies the exception in a meaningful way, such that it is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
Claims 1-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without integration into a practical application or recitation of significantly more. In the analysis below, the image processing apparatus of independent claim 1 is considered representative of independent claims 1, 12, and 22 since all of the independent claims recite very similar steps despite being directed to different statutory matter. Furthermore, each of independent claims 1, 12, and 22 are directed to one of the four statutory categories of eligible subject matter; thus, the claims pass Step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test (See flowchart in MPEP 2106).
Step 2A, Prong 1 Analysis
The independent claims are directed analyzing the acquired two-dimensional radiation image to infer three-dimensional structure information on a structure on an inside of a subject.
Each of the above steps can be performed mentally. An individual can mentally analyze an acquired two-dimensional radiation image to infer three-dimensional structure information on a structure inside of a subject. As such, the description in independent claims 1, 12, and 22 is an abstract idea – namely, a mental process. Accordingly, the analysis under prong one of step 2A of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test does not result in a conclusion of eligibility (See flowchart in MPEP 2106).
Additional elements
The independent claims recite the additional element of a hardware processor and acquiring a two-dimensional radiation image. Independent claim 12 further includes the additional element of a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium.
Step 2A, prong 2 analysis
The above-identified additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The step of acquiring a two-dimensional radiation image amounts to insignificant pre-solution activity which does not integrate the claimed mental process into a practical application (See MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Each of the other additional elements (a processor and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium) amounts to merely using a computer as a tool to perform the claimed mental process. Implementing an abstract idea on a computer does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Moreover, the additional elements of the claims do not recite an improvement in the functioning of a computer or other technology or technical field, the claimed steps are not performed using a particular machine, the claimed steps do not effect a transformation, and the claims do not apply the judicial exception in any meaningful way beyond generically linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (See MPEP 2106.04(d)). Therefore, the analysis under prong two of step 2A of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test does not result in a conclusion of eligibility (See flowchart in MPEP 2106).
Step 2B
Finally, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As noted above, the step of acquiring a two-dimensional radiation image amounts to insignificant pre-solution activity. Such insignificant pre-solution activity does not constitute significantly more than the claimed mental process (See MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Each of the additional elements (a processor and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium) are generic computer features which perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional and do not amount to more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea).
Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation, and mere implementation on a generic computer does not add significantly more to the claims. Accordingly, the analysis under step 2B of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test does not result in a conclusion of eligibility (See flowchart in MPEP 2106).
For all of the foregoing reasons, independent claims 1, 12, and 22 do not recite eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101.
Dependent claims 2-11 are dependent on independent claim 1 and therefore include all of the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claims 2-11 recite the same abstract idea of a mental process which can be performed in the mind.
Claim 2 wherein the hardware processor outputs the inferred three-dimensional structure information. Outputting the data inferred is post solution activity. Such insignificant post-solution activity does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add significantly more (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Claim 3 recites wherein the hardware processor infers, as the three-dimensional structure information on the inside of the subject, information on a position in an irradiation direction. An individual can mentally infer information on position in an irradiation direction. Thus, the feature of claim 3 is directed to the mental process. Accordingly, the claim does not recite any additional limitations that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 4 recites wherein the hardware processor infers, as the three-dimensional structure information on the inside of the subject, information for distinguishing between a structure on a near side and a structure on a far side in an irradiation direction. An individual can mentally infer information for distinguishing between a structure on a near side and a structure on a far side in an irradiation direction. Thus, the feature of claim 4 is directed to the mental process. Accordingly, the claim does not recite any additional limitations that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 5 recites wherein the hardware processor extracts the structure on the inside of the subject from the two-dimensional radiation image and wherein the hardware processor infers, as the three-dimensional structure information, three-dimensional structure information on the extracted structure. An individual can mentally extract structure from an image and infer three-dimensional structure information from the extracted structures. Thus, the feature of claim 5 is directed to the mental process. Accordingly, the claim does not recite any additional limitations that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 6 recites wherein the hardware processor acquires imaging site information and wherein the hardware processor extracts a structure of the subject from the two-dimensional radiation image based on the acquired imaging site information. Acquiring imaging site information is pre-solution activity, and an individual can mentally extract a structure based on that information. Thus, the feature of claim 6 is directed to the mental process. Accordingly, the claim does not recite any additional limitations that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 7 recites wherein the three-dimensional structure information inferred by the hardware processor includes information of a medial condyle side line and information of a lateral condyle side line of a femoral condyle. An individual can mentally determine determination the information inferred as the medial and lateral side lines of the femoral condyle. Thus, the feature of claim 7 is directed to the mental process. Accordingly, the claim does not recite any additional limitations that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 8 recites wherein the hardware processor displays the inferred three-dimensional structure information superimposed on the two-dimensional radiation image. The displaying of the data is post solution activity. Such insignificant post-solution activity does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add significantly more (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Claim 9 recites a re-imaging support information output section that outputs re-imaging support information based on the three-dimensional structure information inferred by the hardware processor. Outputting support information based on the three-dimensional structure information is post solution activity. No improvement to the art can be identified due to the reimaging not taking place in the claims. Such insignificant post-solution activity does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add significantly more (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Claim 10 recites wherein the three-dimensional structure information inferred by the hardware processor includes information of a medial condyle side line and information of a lateral condyle side line of a femoral condyle. Outputting support information based on the three-dimensional structure information is post solution activity. No improvement to the art can be identified due to the reimaging not taking place in the claims. Such insignificant post-solution activity does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add significantly more (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Claim 11 recites wherein the hardware processor inputs, in a machine learning model which has learned radiation images including a structure inside a subject as input data and three-dimensional structure information on the structure inside the subject as correct output data, the radiation image acquired by the hardware processor to infer the three-dimensional structure information of the structure in the radiation image. This claim is eligible due to the machine model being trained in a way to classify it as a particular machine. Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine is considered significantly more (MPEP 2106.05 (A)(iii)).
Dependent claims 13-21 are dependent on independent claim 12 and therefore include all of the limitations of claim 12. Therefore, claims 13-21 recite the same abstract idea of a mental process which can be performed in the mind.
The content of claim 13 is similar to the content of claim 2, hence the 101 analysis for claim 13 is the same analysis done for claim 2 dictating that claim 13 is not eligible under 35 USC 101.
The content of claim 14 is similar to the content of claim 3, hence the 101 analysis for claim 14 is the same analysis done for claim 3 dictating that claim 14 is not eligible under 35 USC 101.
The content of claim 15 is similar to the content of claim 4, hence the 101 analysis for claim 15 is the same analysis done for claim 4 dictating that claim 15 is not eligible under 35 USC 101.
The content of claim 16 is similar to the content of claim 5, hence the 101 analysis for claim 16 is the same analysis done for claim 5 dictating that claim 16 is not eligible under 35 USC 101.
The content of claim 17 is similar to the content of claim 6, hence the 101 analysis for claim 17 is the same analysis done for claim 6 dictating that claim 17 is not eligible under 35 USC 101.
The content of claim 18 is similar to the content of claim 7, hence the 101 analysis for claim 18 is the same analysis done for claim 7 dictating that claim 18 is not eligible under 35 USC 101.
The content of claim 19 is similar to the content of claim 8, hence the 101 analysis for claim 19 is the same analysis done for claim 8 dictating that claim 19 is not eligible under 35 USC 101.
The content of claim 20 is similar to the content of claim 10, hence the 101 analysis for claim 20 is the same analysis done for claim 10 dictating that claim 20 is not eligible under 35 USC 101.
The content of claim 21 is similar to the content of claim 11, hence the 101 analysis for claim 21 is the same analysis done for claim 11 dictating that claim 21 is eligible under 35 USC 101.
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)(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.
Claims 1-7, 9-18, and 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by YAMAMOTO et al. (US 20250387089 A1 Hereinafter “YAMAMOTO”)
Regarding claim 1, YAMAMOTO teaches an image processing apparatus comprising:
a hardware processor ([0064]: “The controller 21 includes a CPU, a GPU (Graphics Processing Unit) and the like”),
wherein the hardware processor acquires a two-dimensional radiation image (Fig. 13, [0101]: “As shown in FIG. 13, the mobile terminal 4 acquires the pre-captured X-ray image Gx1, which is captured through X-rays with which the patient Pa is irradiated from the X-ray irradiator 11 and that pass through the patient, in step S1”); and
analyzes the acquired two-dimensional radiation image to infer three-dimensional structure information on a structure on an inside of a subject (Fig. 8, [0090]: “That is, as shown in FIGS. 8 and 9, the controller 41 is configured to perform control to find the outer edge Bi of the medial condyle based on analysis performed on the pre-captured X-ray image Gx1 acquired through the learned model Md1. The controller 41 is configured to perform control to find the outer edge Bo of the lateral condyle based on analysis through the learned model Md2 acquired”. The outer edge of the medial condyle and the lateral condyle are used to make up the inferred three-dimensional structure information, this structure information is on the inside of the subject (bones). Dotted and solid lines are used to infer the line opposite of the scanner and the line towards the scanner so depth (a third dimension) is inferred “Here, in FIG. 9, the identification marks Ma are a thick solid line for emphasizing the outer edge Bi of the medial condyle and a thick dotted line for emphasizing the outer edge Bo of the lateral condyle” [0090], “Specifically, the controller 41 is configured to perform control to find, based on the pre-capture X-ray image Gx1, the outer edge Bi of the medial condyle, which is a part of the outer edge on the X-ray irradiator 11 side in the irradiation direction included in the bone of the patient Pa in the pre-capture X-ray image Gx1, and the outer edge Bo of the lateral condyle, which is a part of the outer edge on a side opposite to the X-ray irradiator 11 side included in the bone of the patient, to acquire the position correction information J1” [0089]).
Regarding claim 2, YAMAMOTO teaches the image processing apparatus according to claim 1,
wherein the hardware processor outputs the inferred three-dimensional structure information ([0090]: “That is, as shown in FIGS. 8 and 9, the controller 41 is configured to perform control to find the outer edge Bi of the medial condyle based on analysis performed on the pre-captured X-ray image Gx1 acquired through the learned model Md1. The controller 41 is configured to perform control to find the outer edge Bo of the lateral condyle based on analysis through the learned model Md2 acquired”. The hardware processor outputs the three-dimensional structure information. The output can be seen with the estimation result in Fig. 8. The controller controls the models to find the condyles, before bringing them together so the estimation is output from the processor).
Regarding claim 3, YAMAMOTO teaches the image processing apparatus according to claim 1,
wherein the hardware processor infers, as the three-dimensional structure information on the inside of the subject, information on a position in an irradiation direction ([0089]: “Specifically, the controller 41 is configured to perform control to find, based on the pre-capture X-ray image Gx1, the outer edge Bi of the medial condyle, which is a part of the outer edge on the X-ray irradiator 11 side in the irradiation direction included in the bone of the patient Pa in the pre-capture X-ray image Gx1, and the outer edge Bo of the lateral condyle, which is a part of the outer edge on a side opposite to the X-ray irradiator 11 side included in the bone of the patient, to acquire the position correction information J1”. These positions in an irradiation direction are represented by dotted and solid lines are used to infer the line opposite of the scanner and the line towards the scanner “Here, in FIG. 9, the identification marks Ma are a thick solid line for emphasizing the outer edge Bi of the medial condyle and a thick dotted line for emphasizing the outer edge Bo of the lateral condyle” [0090]”).
Regarding claim 4, YAMAMOTO teaches the image processing apparatus according to claim 1,
wherein the hardware processor infers, as the three-dimensional structure information on the inside of the subject, information for distinguishing between a structure on a near side and a structure on a far side in an irradiation direction ([0089]: “Specifically, the controller 41 is configured to perform control to find, based on the pre-capture X-ray image Gx1, the outer edge Bi of the medial condyle, which is a part of the outer edge on the X-ray irradiator 11 side in the irradiation direction included in the bone of the patient Pa in the pre-capture X-ray image Gx1, and the outer edge Bo of the lateral condyle, which is a part of the outer edge on a side opposite to the X-ray irradiator 11 side included in the bone of the patient, to acquire the position correction information J1”. These positions in an irradiation direction are represented by dotted and solid lines are used to infer the line opposite of the scanner (far side) and the line towards the scanner (near side)“Here, in FIG. 9, the identification marks Ma are a thick solid line for emphasizing the outer edge Bi of the medial condyle and a thick dotted line for emphasizing the outer edge Bo of the lateral condyle” [0090]”).
Regarding claim 5, YAMAMOTO teaches the image processing apparatus according to claim 1,
wherein the hardware processor extracts the structure on the inside of the subject from the two-dimensional radiation image (Fig. 8, [0090]: “That is, as shown in FIGS. 8 and 9, the controller 41 is configured to perform control to find the outer edge Bi of the medial condyle based on analysis performed on the pre-captured X-ray image Gx1 acquired through the learned model Md1. The controller 41 is configured to perform control to find the outer edge Bo of the lateral condyle based on analysis through the learned model Md2 acquired”. By finding the outer edges, the structure is extracted (structure is the lines)),
wherein the hardware processor infers, as the three-dimensional structure information, three-dimensional structure information on the extracted structure (Fig. 8, [0090]: “That is, as shown in FIGS. 8 and 9, the controller 41 is configured to perform control to find the outer edge Bi of the medial condyle based on analysis performed on the pre-captured X-ray image Gx1 acquired through the learned model Md1. The controller 41 is configured to perform control to find the outer edge Bo of the lateral condyle based on analysis through the learned model Md2 acquired”. The outer edge of the medial condyle and the lateral condyle are the extracted structure, and make up them three-dimensional structure information. Dotted and solid lines are used to infer the line opposite of the scanner and the line towards the scanner so depth (a third dimension) is inferred “Here, in FIG. 9, the identification marks Ma are a thick solid line for emphasizing the outer edge Bi of the medial condyle and a thick dotted line for emphasizing the outer edge Bo of the lateral condyle” [0090], “Specifically, the controller 41 is configured to perform control to find, based on the pre-capture X-ray image Gx1, the outer edge Bi of the medial condyle, which is a part of the outer edge on the X-ray irradiator 11 side in the irradiation direction included in the bone of the patient Pa in the pre-capture X-ray image Gx1, and the outer edge Bo of the lateral condyle, which is a part of the outer edge on a side opposite to the X-ray irradiator 11 side included in the bone of the patient, to acquire the position correction information J1” [0089]).
Regarding claim 6, YAMAMOTO teaches the image processing apparatus according to claim 5,
wherein the hardware processor acquires imaging site information ([0073]: “The learned model Md1 and the learned model Md2 are exemplary learned models that are to be used when capturing images of a medial condyle of a femur (see FIG. 5) and a lateral condyle of the femur (see FIG. 5) in a knee joint of the patient Pa. The learned model Md3 is a learned model that is to be used when capturing an elbow joint of patient Pa, for example”. For the controller to know which model to use, imaging site information has to be obtained),
wherein the hardware processor extracts a structure of the subject from the two-dimensional radiation image based on the acquired imaging site information (Fig. 8, [0090]: “That is, as shown in FIGS. 8 and 9, the controller 41 is configured to perform control to find the outer edge Bi of the medial condyle based on analysis performed on the pre-captured X-ray image Gx1 acquired through the learned model Md1. The controller 41 is configured to perform control to find the outer edge Bo of the lateral condyle based on analysis through the learned model Md2 acquired”. Since the models are used, the extraction of subject structure is based on the imaging site information).
Regarding claim 7, YAMAMOTO teaches the image processing apparatus according to claim 1,
wherein the three-dimensional structure information inferred by the hardware processor includes information of a medial condyle side line and information of a lateral condyle side line of a femoral condyle ([0073]: “The learned model Md1 and the learned model Md2 are exemplary learned models that are to be used when capturing images of a medial condyle of a femur (see FIG. 5) and a lateral condyle of the femur (see FIG. 5) in a knee joint of the patient Pa. The learned model Md3 is a learned model that is to be used when capturing an elbow joint of patient Pa, for example”. The medial and lateral condyle are mart of the femur, the femoral condyle is the condyle of the femur, which is the information being inferred).
Regarding claim 9, YAMAMOTO teaches the image processing apparatus according to claim 1, further comprising:
a re-imaging support information output section that outputs re-imaging support information based on the three-dimensional structure information inferred by the hardware processor ([0104]: “In step S4, the mobile terminal 4 acquires the position correction information J1 based on the pre-captured X-ray image Gx1. That is, the mobile terminal 4 acquires the position correction information J1 as the imaging assistance information J for assistance in capturing the main captured X-ray image Gx2 captured through X-rays with which the patient is irradiated from the X-ray irradiator 11 based on the pre-captured X-ray image Gx1 after capturing the pre-captured X-ray image Gx1”. The mobile terminal acquires the position correction information when it is determined that the radiologist wants to correct the positioning. He makes this determination based on the three-dimensional structure information inferred by the hardware).
Regarding claim 10, YAMAMOTO teaches the image processing apparatus according to claim 9,
wherein the re-imaging support information is information for changing a position of the subject or an imaging device at a time of re-imaging ([0105]: “In step S5, the mobile terminal 4 displays the position correction information J1 on the display 44 based on the acquisition of the position correction information J1. Specifically, the mobile terminal 4 displays an arrow on the display 44 as the position correction information J1, which includes information on the movement direction θ in horizontal directions and the movement distance Dt when the radiologic technologist Ra manually moves the X-ray irradiator 11 and the patient Pa relative to each other. Here, the base end of the arrow (see FIG. 11)”. Pf is the corrected position in Fig. 11, and J1 is the position correction information needed to change the current capture state to the corrected one).
Regarding claim 11, YAMAMOTO teaches the image processing apparatus according to claim 1,
wherein the hardware processor inputs, in a machine learning model which has learned radiation images including a structure inside a subject as input data and three-dimensional structure information on the structure inside the subject as correct output data, the radiation image acquired by the hardware processor to infer the three-dimensional structure information of the structure in the radiation image ([0072]: “The learned model Md1, the learned model Md2, the learned model Md3 are learned models that have been produced by machine learning using X-ray images Gx of imaging target parts as input data. Here, the imaging target parts include joint parts such as shoulders and elbows in artificial bones or bones, for example. Also, the learned model Md1, the learned model Md2, the learned model Md3 are models acquired based on machine learning such as U-Net, for example. Here, the machine learning using X-ray images Gx as input data can be any of supervised learning, unsupervised learning, and reinforcement learning”. The learned models are machine models which have been trained using radiation images (to be able to decipher structure in radiation images) of the structure inside a subject, and they produce three-dimensional structure information as output data).
Regarding claim 12, the content of claim 12 is similar to the content of claim 1, with the additional teachings of a non-transitory computer readable storage medium. YAMAMOTO also discloses this information [0064]: “The storage 22 includes a non-volatile storage medium such as HDD (Hard Disk Drive) or SSD (Solid State Drive)”). Therefore, claim 12 is rejected for the same reasons of anticipation as claim 1, along with the additional teachings above.
Regarding claim 13, the content of claim 13 is similar to the content of claim 2, therefore it is rejected for the same reasons of anticipation as claim 2.
Regarding claim 14, the content of claim 14 is similar to the content of claim 3, therefore it is rejected for the same reasons of anticipation as claim 3.
Regarding claim 15, the content of claim 15 is similar to the content of claim 4, therefore it is rejected for the same reasons of anticipation as claim 4.
Regarding claim 16, the content of claim 16 is similar to the content of claim 5, therefore it is rejected for the same reasons of anticipation as claim 5.
Regarding claim 17, the content of claim 17 is similar to the content of claim 6, therefore it is rejected for the same reasons of anticipation as claim 6.
Regarding claim 18, the content of claim 18 is similar to the content of claim 7, therefore it is rejected for the same reasons of anticipation as claim 7.
Regarding claim 20, the content of claim 20 is similar to the content of claim 9, therefore it is rejected for the same reasons of anticipation as claim 9.
Regarding claim 21, the content of claim 21 is similar to the content of claim 10, therefore it is rejected for the same reasons of anticipation as claim 10.
Regarding claim 22, the content of claim 22 is similar to the content of claim 1, therefore it is rejected for the same reasons of anticipation as claim 1.
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.
Claims 8 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YAMAMOTO et al. (US 20250387089 A1 Hereinafter “YAMAMOTO”) in view of SUGIYAMA (US 20230015883 A1 Hereinafter “SUGIYAMA”).
Regarding claim 8, YAMAMOTO teaches the image processing apparatus according to claim 2,
wherein the hardware processor displays the inferred three-dimensional structure information (Fig. 9 shows the controller displaying the 3D structure information to the radiologist).
YAMAMOTO does not expressly disclose superimposing the three-dimensional structure information on the two-dimensional radiation image.
However, SUGIYAMA teaches superimposing information for re-imaging on a 2D radiation image ([0099]: “In the above embodiment, the presentation unit 54 displays the enlarged image 70 of the region of interest ROI that the determination unit 52 pays attention to in the image display region 60A (refer to FIG. 9). As shown in FIG. 12, the presentation unit 54 may display a pixel region 71, which has contributed to the determination of the reason for reimaging by the determination unit 52, in the enlarged image 70”).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify YAMAMOTO’s re-imaging determination method to include SUGIYAMA’s superimposing of data that determines re-imaging on two-dimensional radiation images because such a modification is taught, suggested, or motivated by the art. More specifically, the motivation to modify YAMAMOTO to include SUGIYAMA is expressly provided by SUGIYAMA, stating that by displaying the information in this way, it can help the technician more accurately determine the necessity of reimaging ([0099]: “As a result, the technician RG can more accurately determine the necessity of reimaging”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify YAMAMOTO’s re-imaging determination method to include SUGIYAMA’s superimposing of data that determines re-imaging on two-dimensional radiation images with the motivation of improving re-imaging determination accuracy. The person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the benefit of improved re-imaging determination accuracy.
Regarding claim 19, the content of claim 19 is similar to the content of claim 8, therefore it is rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as claim 8.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Uemura et al. (US 20250331796 A1) teaches X-ray alignment
RO (US 20240242342 A1) teaches determining knee joint positioning
OKUMURA et al. (US 20230270397 A1) teaches position correction for imaging
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEFANO A DARDANO whose telephone number is (703)756-4543. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 11:00 - 7:00.
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, Greg Morse can be reached at (571) 272-3838. 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.
/STEFANO ANTHONY DARDANO/ Examiner, Art Unit 2663
/GREGORY A MORSE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2698
Prosecution Insights