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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I, Species I.A (claims 2–6) in the reply filed on July 30, 2026 is acknowledged. The application has pending claims 1–17. (withdrawn claims 7–15 are withdrawn from further consideration).
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it begins with the legalistic/ self-referential phrase "Provided is a dynamic image processing apparatus that includes...". See MPEP § 608.01(b). The abstract should be rewritten in a direct, technical narrative style describing what the apparatus, method, and/or medium does (“A dynamic image processing apparatus that includes…”), rather than framing the disclosure in terms of what is "provided". A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
[0015] contains a duplicated sentence. Specifically, the sentence "FIG. 2 is a block diagram schematically illustrating mobile vehicle 10 illustrated in FIG. 1". appears twice in immediate succession.
[0046], the sentence beginning “Input/output section 241 may also settings and operations…” is grammatically incomplete and appears to omit a verb. The sentence should be revised to state clearly the intended operation of input/output section 241.
[0056], “at least one hardware processor function as extraction section 101…” should be changed to “at least one hardware processor functions as extraction section 101….”.
[0088], “dynamic image processing apparatus 100 configured to extract…” should be changed to “dynamic image processing apparatus 100 is configured to extract….”.
[0091], “dynamic image processing apparatus 100 is not necessarily perform…” should be changed to “dynamic image processing apparatus 100 does not necessarily perform….”.
[0109], “dynamic images for confirming the optimum setting value of respirator 300 requires…” should be changed to “dynamic images for confirming the optimum setting value of respirator 300 require….” Additionally, “can be lowered than” should be revised to “can be lower than,” or otherwise corrected to express the intended comparison.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 3–6 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.
Claims 3 and 6 recite the limitation “the different setting values” in claims. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 2 introduces the limitation using a singular noun phrase distributed across a set: “...at least two of the dynamic images each imaged at a different setting value...”. Claim 3 then refers back using a plural, collective noun phrase: “...an optimum setting value with respect to a plurality of the different setting values...”, claim 6 repeats the same plural construction: “ ...as one of a plurality of the different setting values... ”. Because claim 2 does not explicitly establish a plural antecedent ("a plurality of different setting values"), but rather recites the limitation distributively across each of the at least two images, it is unclear whether "the different setting values" in claims 3 and 6 refers back to the same limitation recited in claim 2, or introduces new subject matter. A person of ordinary skill in the art cannot ascertain the scope of the claims with reasonable certainty. Appropriate correction is required. For example, applicant may consider amending claim 2 to recite “ ...extracts the information from at least two of the dynamic images, each of the at least two of the dynamic images being imaged at a different one of a plurality of different setting values of the respiratory assistance apparatus, ” to establish a clear plural antecedent for claims 3 and 6.
Claim 4 recites the limitation " comparing the information corresponding to a left lung of the lungs with the information corresponding to a right lung of the lungs" in claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1 recites only "information on a setting value of a respiratory assistance apparatus," and Claim 3 recites "based on the information". Neither Claim 1 nor parent Claims 2–3 recite that the extracted information includes separate left and right lung information components. Thus, the reference to "the information corresponding to a left lung" and "the information corresponding to a right lung" renders the claim scope indefinite.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "comparing a plurality of pieces of the information each corresponding to a plurality of regions obtained by dividing lung fields of the lungs" in claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There is no prior recitation in parent claims 1–4 of divided lung regions or distinct "pieces of the information" corresponding thereto.
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.
Claims 1–6, and 16–17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
This rejection has been made in accordance with the current USPTO subject matter eligibility framework, including MPEP §§ 2103–2106.07, the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, the October 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance Update, the 2024 Guidance Update on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility, Including on Artificial Intelligence, the July 2024 AI Subject Matter Eligibility Examples, the August 4, 2025 USPTO memorandum titled "Reminders on evaluating subject matter eligibility of claims under 35 U.S.C. § 101," and the USPTO's guidance concerning Ex parte Desjardins, Appeal No. 2024-000567. The claims have been evaluated under the broadest reasonable interpretation, and the claims have been considered as a whole.
Step 1: Statutory category
Independent claim 1 (and dependent claims 2–6) is directed to a dynamic image processing apparatus and therefore falls within the statutory category of a machine. Independent claim 16 is directed to a dynamic image processing method and therefore falls within the statutory category of a process. Independent claim 17 is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium and therefore falls within the statutory category of an article of manufacture. Accordingly, the analysis proceeds to Step 2A.
Step 2A, Prong One (Judicial exception)
Independent claims 1, 16, and 17 recite: : processing at least one dynamic image of a subject’s lungs, where the image was obtained by irradiating the lungs while the subject was on a respiratory assistance apparatus; extracting information on a setting value of a respiratory assistance apparatus by processing at least one dynamic image imaged by irradiating lungs of a subject with radiation, the subject being put on the respiratory assistance apparatus; and outputting the information.
Dependent claims 2–6 further recite: extracting information from at least two dynamic images imaged at different setting values (claim 2); determining an optimum setting value with respect to the different setting values based on the information (claim 3); determining the optimum setting value by comparing information corresponding to a left lung with information corresponding to a right lung (claim 4); determining the optimum setting value by comparing information corresponding to a plurality of divided lung field regions (claim 5); and wherein one dynamic image is at a reference setting value and another is at a higher or lower setting value (claim 6). These additional limitations remain pure mathematical concepts, mental comparison steps, and data manipulation rules.
These limitations recite an abstract idea in the mental-process grouping: observing and evaluating medical-image information to identify and present information concerning a respiratory-assistance setting. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, a person can review lung-motion imagery, evaluate the observed ventilation information, and report information relevant to the apparatus setting. The claimed “processing” and “extracting” are stated only at a result-oriented level and encompass such observation, evaluation, judgment, and reporting. Requiring a processor to perform an evaluation that can practically be performed in the human mind does not remove the limitation from the mental-process grouping.
The claims recite information collection (receiving dynamic radiographic images), mathematical data analysis and cognitive evaluation (processing images, comparing left/right lung data, comparing regional fields, and evaluating setting values), and outputting the result (outputting the extracted information or optimum setting value). The claims do NOT recite a specific physical improvement to the radiation source, detector, or physical image acquisition machinery itself, nor do they recite an improvement to the internal physical operation of the computer hardware. Rather, the claims merely process preexisting image data through mathematical comparison steps and output the resulting information.
The claims are similar in character to claims that courts have found abstract where the focus is collecting information, analyzing the information mathematically or conceptually, and presenting or reporting the results of the analysis (e.g., Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016); In re Bilski, 545 F.3d 943 (Fed. Cir. 2008)).
Accordingly, claims 1–6 recite an abstract idea under Step 2A, Prong One.
Step 2A, Prong Two (Practical Application)
The additional elements, considered individually and in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The recited "dynamic image", "information on a setting value", "optimum setting value", and "left lung / right lung comparative information" amount to abstract data objects, clinical evaluation concepts, and generic computer inputs/outputs.
The recitation "imaged by irradiating lungs of a subject with radiation, the subject being put on the respiratory assistance apparatus" constitutes mere pre-solution data gathering and an insignificant field-of-use limitation (MPEP § 2106.05(g), (h)) . The claims do not recite any specific technological improvement to the physical generation, collimation, or detection of radiation, nor do they improve how dynamic X-ray detector hardware physically operates.
Nor do the claims recite a particular improvement to a computer, image-processing system, respiratory assistance apparatus, or other technology. The hardware processor is instructed only to “process” an image and “extract” setting-related information, without a claimed algorithm, data structure, processing architecture, or other technical mechanism. Claims 2 and 6 select images associated with different settings, and claims 3–5 compare information and determine an optimum setting, but none changes the operation of the imaging equipment, reduces computing-resource use, improves the processor itself, or requires a technically improved form of image analysis.
Although claims 3–5 refer to an “optimum setting value,” the claimed result is only information or a recommendation. No elected claim requires changing the respiratory assistance apparatus to that setting, administering respiratory treatment according to the result, or causing any other physical action. The claims therefore end with evaluation and output rather than applying the result in a particular treatment. This distinction is consistent with USPTO Example 49, in which a claim ending in a patient-specific treatment recommendation is ineligible while a dependent claim that actually administers treatment is integrated into a practical application.
For purposes of this analysis, “an outputter that outputs information” in claim 1 is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f). The corresponding disclosed structure includes the processor operating as output section 102, together with the disclosed input/output and communication interfaces, and the disclosed sequence for displaying, transmitting, or otherwise outputting the analysis-related information (see paragraphs [0054–0058] and [0072]), and equivalents. Even with that construction, the outputter merely communicates the result of the abstract evaluation. Displaying or transmitting the setting-related information is insignificant post-solution activity and does not impose a meaningful technological limit on the abstract idea.
Considering the limitations as an ordered combination does not change the analysis. The claims use generic processing and output components to receive previously generated medical images, evaluate the images for setting-related information, and communicate the result. This is use of a computer as a tool to perform the abstract evaluation in the field of respiratory care, not an integration of the exception into a practical application. Accordingly, claims 1–6 and 16–17 are directed to the judicial exception under Step 2A, Prong Two.
Step 2B: (Inventive Concept)
The additional elements, considered both individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
The claims use generic computer components to perform well-understood, routine, and conventional computer functions in the art, including receiving dynamic image data, running comparative algorithms, determining numerical values, and outputting data to a display or interface. It describes the processor in terms of an ordinary CPU, RAM, and ROM (paragraph [0067]); describes ordinary input/ output devices (paragraph [0058]); and describes output through a display, communication to another device, or a recording medium (paragraph [0072]). The specification does not identify specialized processor circuitry, a nonconventional output interface, or an unconventional hardware arrangement as necessary to perform the claimed functions.
The ordered combination likewise follows the abstract idea itself: obtain one or more preexisting dynamic lung images associated with respiratory-assistance settings, extract or compare information, determine or identify setting-related information, and output that information. Arranging generic computer components to perform these ordinary data-processing and communication functions does not supply an inventive concept. The claimed medical environment and the source of the image data do not transform the abstract information evaluation into patent-eligible subject matter.
Dependent claims 2–6 recite additional comparative metrics (evaluating multiple images at different settings, comparing bilateral lung data, comparing regional subdivisions, using higher/lower setting tiers) . These limitations merely specify standard data gathering steps, obvious mathematical parameters, and known clinical diagnostic comparison points, adding nothing significantly more to the claim.
Independent CRM claim 17 and method claim 16 recite generic counterparts using basic processor instructions to perform substantially the same operations. The recitation of a standard non-transitory computer-readable medium or generic method steps does not transform the abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter.
The § 112(f) construction of the “outputter” does not alter the Step 2B conclusion. The disclosed processor, display, input/output interface, and communication interface perform their ordinary functions of formatting, displaying, transmitting, or storing the result. Those generic output functions, whether considered separately or together with the generic processor, do not provide significantly more than the judicial exception.
Accordingly, claims 1–6 and 16–17 are directed to a judicial exception without significantly more and are therefore rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(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.
Claims 1, and 16–17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wiemker (Wiemker et al, US 2009/0257557 A1, 2009).
Regarding claim 1, Wiemker teaches a dynamic image processing apparatus ( [0008], [0023], [0028], [Figs. 1-2]: mechanical ventilation device includes electronic processing device 18 configured to receive and process lung images acquired over time to generate timeline images 38.), comprising:
at least one hardware processor; and
( [0023-0024], [0028], [Fig. 1]: electronic processing device 18 includes electronic controller 20, which may be an electronic processor or microprocessor and may comprise one or more electronic processors; controller 20 processes X-ray images 34 to generate timeline images 38. )
an outputter that outputs information on a setting value of a respiratory assistance apparatus, wherein
( [0020], [0023], [0033], [Figs. 1, 3-4]: display devices 14 and 24 output information concerning settings of mechanical ventilator 2; the displayed timeline images 38 are annotated with values of one or more ventilator settings corresponding in time to the respective timeline images. )
the at least one hardware processor extracts the information by processing at least one dynamic image imaged by irradiating lungs of a subject with radiation, the subject being put on the respiratory assistance apparatus.
( [0008], [0022], [0027-0028], [0036-0037], [0042], [Figs. 1-2]: images of the lungs of patient P are acquired over time by X-ray imaging while patient P is connected to and undergoing therapy with mechanical ventilator 2; electronic processing device 18 processes and interpolates X-ray images 34 to generate time-series timeline images 38; each two-dimensional X-ray image, together with its accompanying mechanical-ventilator setting, constitutes a sample in a multidimensional imaging space; an image and associated mechanical-ventilator setting are generated for a selected time point; and the mechanical-ventilator settings are correlated with pixels of the processed time-series images and the resulting correlations are graphically output to the clinician. )
Regarding claims 16-17, the rationale provided in the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein. Further, the method of claim 1 corresponds to the method of claim 16, as well as the non-transitory computer-readable recording medium of claims 17 ( Wiemker, [0009], [0024], [0025]: Wiemker teaches a computerized mechanical-ventilation method in which electronic controller 20 receives and processes lung images and displays the resulting information; non-transitory storage media 26 and 26a store instructions executable by electronic controller 20 to perform ventilation-assistance method 100. ), and performs the steps disclosed herein.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 2–3, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Wiemker in view of Widing (Widing et al. The Effects of Positive End-Expiratory Pressure on Transpulmonary Pressure and Recruitment–Derecruitment During Neurally Adjusted Ventilator Assist: A Continuous Computed Tomography Study in an Animal Model of Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome. Frontiers in Physiology, 10., 2019).
Regarding claim 2, Wiemker teaches the dynamic image processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein
the at least one hardware processor extracts the information from at least two of the timeline images each imaged at a different setting value of the respiratory assistance apparatus.
( [0005-0006], [0027-0028], [0033], [0035-0037], [0042-0043], [Figs. 3-4]: Wiemker teaches acquiring a plurality of timestamped X-ray images over time while a patient undergoes mechanical ventilation and while time-dependent mechanical-ventilator settings, including PEEP and volume, are adjusted. The processor processes the acquired X-ray images to generate a plurality of corresponding timeline images. Each recorded X-ray image, together with its accompanying mechanical-ventilator setting, represents a respective sample in the image-and-setting space. The processor correlates image information with the time-dependent ventilator settings, estimates physiological lung parameters from the images, and displays or annotates the timeline images with the respective ventilator-setting values corresponding in time to the images. )
Wiemker does not expressly teach acquiring the images as dynamic image sequences at the respective ventilator settings. Widing, however, teaches this feature:
the at least one hardware processor extracts the information from at least two of the dynamic images each imaged at a different setting value of the respiratory assistance apparatus.
( [Sec. “Ventilatory Protocol During CT”], [Sec. “Determination of Lung Aeration and Data Analysis”], [Sec. “Statistics and Hypothesis Testing,” > Q2–Q3]: Widing teaches applying successive PEEP settings from 0 to 15 cmH₂O and acquiring, at each applied PEEP setting, a separate 100-second dynamic CT sequence at 20 Hz comprising 2,000 lung images over multiple respiratory cycles. A computer executing MATLAB scripts processes the dynamic CT images to extract gas content, respiratory swing, voxel aeration, atelectasis, and recruitment/ derecruitment information for each PEEP setting, and the extracted information is compared among the different PEEP settings. )
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use Widing’s known technique of acquiring and processing a dynamic lung-image sequence at each of a plurality of PEEP settings in Wiemker’s image-processing and ventilator-setting correlation process, because Widing teaches that such setting-specific dynamic sequences were known and useful for determining lung aeration, atelectasis, and recruitment/ derecruitment over respiratory cycles and comparing those measures among PEEP settings. Such a modification would have predictably allowed Wiemker’s processor to extract temporally resolved physiological lung information from dynamic images acquired at different ventilator settings, thereby improving comparison of the patient’s response among the settings and evaluation of an appropriate ventilator setting.
Regarding claim 3, Wiemker [as modified by Widing] teaches the dynamic image processing apparatus according to claim 2, wherein
the at least one hardware processor determines an optimum setting value with respect to a plurality of the different setting values based on the information.
( Widing, [Sec. “Determination of Lung Aeration and Data Analysis”], [Sec. “Statistics and Hypothesis Testing” > Q2–Q3], [Fig. 10; Sec. “Clinical Implications and Open Questions”; Sec. “Conclusion”]: Widing teaches computer-implemented calculation and comparison of lung aeration, atelectasis, recruitment/ derecruitment, and transpulmonary-pressure information for the different PEEP settings. Figure 10 demonstrates that recruitment/ derecruitment is greater at lower PEEP settings, whereas transpulmonary pressure is greater at higher PEEP settings. Widing teaches selecting a PEEP level that provides the best compromise between the risks associated with high recruitment/ derecruitment and high transpulmonary pressure. )
Regarding claim 6, Wiemker [as modified by Widing] teaches the dynamic image processing apparatus according to claim 2, wherein:
one of the at least two dynamic images is a dynamic image when a reference setting value of the respiratory assistance apparatus is used as one of a plurality of the different setting values, and
( Widing, [Sec. “Ventilatory Protocol During CT”], [Sec. “Statistics and Hypothesis Testing” > Q2–Q3], [Fig. 10]: Widing teaches acquiring a separate 100-second dynamic CT sequence at each PEEP setting in a protocol beginning at 0 cmH₂O, increasing to 15 cmH₂O in 3-cmH₂O steps, and then returning to 0 cmH₂O. Widing compares the image-derived results among the respective PEEP settings; thus, an acquisition at a selected first PEEP setting, such as 0 cmH₂O, constitutes a dynamic image acquired using a reference setting value. )
another one of the at least two dynamic images is a dynamic image when a setting value higher or lower than the reference setting value is used as another one of a plurality of the different setting values.
( Widing, [Sec. “Ventilatory Protocol During CT”], [Sec. “Statistics and Hypothesis Testing” > Q2–Q3], [Fig. 10], [Table 1]: Widing teaches acquiring another dynamic CT sequence at 3 cmH₂O, which is higher than the 0-cmH₂O reference setting, and further teaches acquiring dynamic sequences at successively higher settings through 15 cmH₂O and at successively lower settings during the descending PEEP ramp. The image-derived information from these different PEEP settings is then compared. )
Claims 4–5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Wiemker [as modified by Widing] in view of Tanaka (Tanaka et al. Ventilatory impairment detection based on distribution of respiratory-induced changes in pixel values in dynamic chest radiography: a feasibility study. International Journal of Computer Assisted Radiology and Surgery, 6(1), 103–110, 2011).
Regarding claim 4, Wiemker [as modified by Widing] teaches the dynamic image processing apparatus according to claim 3, wherein
Wiemker [as modified by Widing] does not expressly teach determining the extracted information separately for respective spatially distinct lung regions [e.g., the left lung and the right lung]. Tanaka, however, teaches this feature:
the at least one hardware processor determines the optimum setting value by comparing the information corresponding to a left lung of the lungs with the information corresponding to a right lung of the lungs.
( Tanaka, [Abstract], [Secs. “Image Analysis” and “Statistical Analysis”], [Figs. 1–4]: Tanaka teaches a personal computer executing an image-analysis algorithm that processes sequential dynamic chest radiographs and measures respiratory-induced pixel-value changes in local lung areas. The processor identifies corresponding regions in the left and right lungs, compares the respective left- and right-lung pixel-change information, and evaluates deviation from right-left symmetry to identify regional ventilatory impairment. )
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate Tanaka’s known computerized left-right lung comparison into Wiemker [as modified by Widing]’s setting-specific dynamic-image analysis because Tanaka teaches that comparing respiratory-induced changes in corresponding left- and right-lung regions detects regional ventilatory impairment. Such a modification would have predictably enabled the processor to determine an optimum respiratory-assistance setting that accounts for asymmetric ventilation responses in the lungs.
Regarding claim 5, Wiemker [as modified by Widing and Tanaka] teaches the dynamic image processing apparatus according to claim 4, wherein
the at least one hardware processor determines the optimum setting value by comparing a plurality of pieces of the information each corresponding to a plurality of regions obtained by dividing lung fields of the lungs.
( Tanaka, [Sec. “Division of Lung Area, Tracking, and Deformation”], [Secs. “Measurement of Pixel Values,” “Creation of Distribution Map,” and “Statistical Analysis”], [Figs. 1–5]: Tanaka teaches dividing each sequential chest radiograph into a 32 × 32 grid and using the blocks within the recognized lung fields as a plurality of local lung regions. For each block, the processor measures average pixel values, calculates and sums interframe pixel-value differences over the dynamic-image frames, and generates respective regional ventilation information. The processor compares the resulting pieces of regional information, including comparisons between paired blocks at corresponding positions in the left and right lungs, to evaluate the spatial distribution of ventilation. )
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEN KUDO whose telephone number is (571)272-4498. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am - 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.
KEN KUDO
Examiner
Art Unit 2671
/KEN KUDO/Examiner, Art Unit 2671
/VINCENT RUDOLPH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2671
Prosecution Insights