DETAILED ACTION
[1] Remarks
I. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
II. Claims 1-9 are pending and have been examined, where claims 1-9 is/are rejected. Explanations will be provided below.
III. Inventor and/or assignee search were performed and determined no double patenting rejection(s) is/are necessary.
IV. Patent eligibility (updated in 2019) shown by the following: Claims 1-9 pass patent eligibility test because there is/are no limitation or a combination of limitations amounting to an abstract idea. Also, the following limitation or the combinations of the limitations: “determining, by the image processing device, reference regions in the initial fundus image; and correcting, by the image processing device, color of the initial fundus image on the basis of a difference between color values of a first reference region and a second reference region among the reference regions” effects a transformation or a reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing / adds a specific limitation(s) other than what is well-understood, routine and conventional in the field, or adding unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful application and providing improvements to the technical field of medical image diagnosis, which recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and amounting significant more.
V. The PCT application, PCT/KR2022/021570, is considered and the examiner determined no reference prior art are relevant to the claims of the current application.
[2] Claim Interpretation
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.
Use of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is invoked is rebutted when the function is recited with sufficient structure, material, or acts within the claim itself to entirely perform the recited function. Absence of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is not invoked is rebutted when the claim element recites function but fails to recite sufficiently definite structure, material or acts to perform that function.
Claim elements in this application that use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Similarly, claim elements that do not use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed not to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim(s) 6-9 are not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA U.S.C. 112 6th paragraph because of the following reason(s): limitations are modified by sufficient structure or material for performing the claimed function.
Claim(s) 1-5 do not require 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA U.S.C. 112 6th paragraph interpretation because they are method claims and / or they are CRM claims.
Upon examination of the specification and claims, the examiner has determined, under the best understanding of the scope of the claim(s), rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(a)/(b) is not necessitated because of the following reasons: sufficient support are provided in the written description / drawings of the invention.
[3] Grounds of Rejection
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
U.S.C. 102 Conditions for patentability; novelty.
[Editor Note: Applicable to any patent application subject to the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA (see 35 U.S.C. 100 (note) ). See 35 U.S.C. 102 (pre-AIA ) for the law otherwise applicable.]
(a) NOVELTY; PRIOR ART.—A person shall be entitled to a patent unless—
(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; or
(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.
(b) EXCEPTIONS.—
(1) DISCLOSURES MADE 1 YEAR OR LESS BEFORE THE EFFECTIVE FILING DATE OF THE CLAIMED INVENTION.—A disclosure made 1 year or less before the effective filing date of a claimed invention shall not be prior art to the claimed invention under subsection (a)(1) if—
(A) the disclosure was made by the inventor or joint inventor or by another who obtained the subject matter disclosed directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor; or
(B) the subject matter disclosed had, before such disclosure, been publicly disclosed by the inventor or a joint inventor or another who obtained the subject matter disclosed directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor.
(2) DISCLOSURES APPEARING IN APPLICATIONS AND PATENTS.—A disclosure shall not be prior art to a claimed invention under subsection (a)(2) if—
(A) the subject matter disclosed was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor;
(B) the subject matter disclosed had, before such subject matter was effectively filed under subsection (a)(2), been publicly disclosed by the inventor or a joint inventor or another who obtained the subject matter disclosed directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor; or
(C) the subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, were owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person.
Claims 1-4 and 6-9 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2) as being anticipated by Uji (US 20170296049).
Regarding claim 1, Uji discloses a method of standardizing a fundus image on the basis of an artery and a vein, the method comprising:
receiving, by an image processing device, an initial fundus image (see figure 9, S910);
determining, by the image processing device, reference regions in the initial fundus image (see figure 9, S930 determine reference image with region, the region and non-region are read as “reference regions”, see paragraph 62, from the color fundus images Ex1 to Ex3 of the same eye which are captured on different examination dates and acquired in step S910); and
correcting, by the image processing device, color of the initial fundus image on the basis of a difference between color values of a first reference region and a second reference region among the reference regions (see figure 9, S960 perform color difference enhancement processing, also see paragraph 67, color difference enhancement processing unit 3331 executes principal component analysis on the partial region of the reference image converted into the representation in the difference color space in step S610. The eigenvector and eigenvalue of the variance-covariance matrix are calculated so that the axial directions of the principal components and the amounts of dispersion of the image data in the axial directions of the principal components as illustrated in FIG. 8F can be calculated, otherwise, no principal component analysis is executed on the other examination images).
Regarding claim 2, Uji discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the first reference region is an arterial region, and the second reference region is a venous region (see figure 8A illustration below, the arterial regions are close to venous regions, where the dark lines are the arterial regions):
PNG
media_image1.png
275
818
media_image1.png
Greyscale
.
Regarding claim 3, Uji discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the image processing device corrects the color of the initial fundus image such that the difference between the color values becomes a previously known reference value or falls within a previously known reference range (see paragraph 62, the reference region determination unit 3322 determines, from the color fundus images Ex1 to Ex3 of the same eye which are captured on different examination dates, also see figure 8A-8C, paragraph 59, color difference enhancement processing unit 3331 stretches the amounts of dispersion of the fundus image data in the predetermined color space which are equalized in step S630 to the target amount, so that the image is converted into a color image in which the color differences are further enhanced, as illustrated in FIG. 5E, the image pixel stretches or corrects).
Regarding claim 4, Uji discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising correcting, by the image processing device, the color of the initial fundus image to have a previously known color reference value on the basis of any one of the first reference region and the second reference region (see paragraph 59, determines as a reference image the latest examination image Ex3 (FIG. 8C) in which the bleeding is stopped. A case will be described in which a target region is set in each of the radiation fields Rb of the examination images Ex1 to Ex3 and a parameter value of the decorrelation stretching processing for the radiation field Rb of the reference image Ex3 is also applied to the radiation fields Rb of the other examination images Ex1 and Ex2 to perform color difference enhancement such that a substantially the same color is assigned to a region that does not change over time).
Regarding claim 6 see the rationale and rejection for claim 1. Also see paragraph 73 which includes processor.
Regarding claim 7 see the rationale and rejection for claim 2.
Regarding claim 8 see the rationale and rejection for claim 3.
Regarding claim 9 see the rationale and rejection for claim 4.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
1. 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.
2. Claims 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uji (US 20170296049) in view of Xu (US 20120213423).
Regarding claim 5, Uji discloses all the limitations of claim 1, but is silent in disclosing the method of claim 1, wherein the reference regions are set using information input by a user, or extracted from the initial fundus image using a separate learning model.
Xu discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the reference regions are set using information input by a user, or extracted from the initial fundus image using a separate learning model (see figure 2, ensemble model is employed).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the method of claim 1, wherein the reference regions are set using information input by a user, or extracted from the initial fundus image using a separate learning model because fundus photographs have a large black background that can cause false-positive reading and by isolating the retina the algorithms process smaller areas, improving recognition and accuracy.
CONTACT INFORMATION
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEX LIEW (duty station is located in New York City) whose telephone number is (571)272-8623 (FAX 571-273-8623), cell (917)763-1192 or email alexa.liew@uspto.gov. Please note the examiner cannot reply through email unless an internet communication authorization is provided by the applicant. The examiner can be reached anytime.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, MISTRY ONEAL R, can be reached on (313)446-4912. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ALEX KOK S LIEW/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2674 Telephone: 571-272-8623
Date: 5/29/26
Prosecution Insights