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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged that application claims priority to foreign application with application number JP2022-065907 dated 4/12/2022. Copies of certified papers required by 37 CFR 1.55 have been received. Priority is acknowledged under 35 USC 119(e) and 37 CFR 1.78.
Information Disclosure Statement
The IDS dated 01/09/2025 has been considered and placed in the application file.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 16 recites “wherein the display settings are settings related to at least one of a resolution, a gradation, a brightness, a contrast, a window level, a window width, or a color of the first image of interest and the second image of interest”.
Since “or” is disjunctive, any one of the elements found in the prior art is sufficient to reject the claim. While citations have been provided for completeness and rapid prosecution, only one element is required. Applicant’s comments and/or amendments relating to this issue are invited to clarify the claim language and the prosecution history.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 recites:
“acquire a character string including a description regarding at least one first image obtained by imaging a subject at a first point in time” which can be reasonably interpreted as a human observer mentally describing an image of a subject at one time.
“specify a first region of interest described in the character string” which can be reasonably interpreted as a human observer mentally describing a region of interest in a description.
“specify a first image of interest including the first region of interest from the first image” which can be reasonably interpreted as a human observer mentally describing a region of interest in an image.
“specify a second image of interest corresponding to the first image of interest from at least one second image obtained by imaging the subject at a second point in time” which can be reasonably interpreted as a human observer mentally describing an image of interest based on the first image.
“And display the first image of interest and the second image of interest on a display in association with each other” is a well-understood, routine, and conventional insignificant extra-solution activity of data outputting.
Claim 2 recites “wherein the processor is configured to specify the second image obtained by imaging the same position as the first image of interest as the second image of interest”. Imaging the second image with the same position as the first image is a well-understood, routine, and conventional insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering.
Claim 3 recites “wherein the processor is configured to receive a selection of a portion of the character string to be used to specify the first region of interest”. Receiving a character string is a well-understood, routine, and conventional insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering.
Claim 4 recites “wherein the processor is configured to, in a case in which a plurality of the first regions of interest described in the character string are specified, specify the first image of interest and the second image of interest for each of the plurality of first regions of interest”. A person can mentally specify images of interest for regions of interests when viewing a text or description.
Claim 5 recites “wherein the processor is configured to display the first image of interest and the second image of interest specified for each of the plurality of first regions of interest on the display in sequence”. Displaying images are a well-understood, routine, and conventional insignificant extra-solution activity of data outputting.
Claim 6 recites “wherein the processor is configured to display the first image of interest and the second image of interest on the display in sequence in an order according to a predetermined priority for each of the plurality of first regions of interest”. Displaying images in a sequence are a well-understood, routine, and conventional insignificant extra-solution activity of data outputting.
Claim 7 recites “wherein the processor is configured to: display an input field for receiving a character string including a description regarding the second image of interest on the display in association with the second image of interest; And display a next first image of interest and a next second image of interest on the display after receiving the character string including the description regarding the second image of interest in the input field”. Displaying an input field and displaying images after receiving a character string are well-understood, routine, and conventional insignificant extra-solution activity of data outputting.
Claim 8 recites “wherein the processor is configured to display the first image of interest and the second image of interest specified for each of the plurality of first regions of interest on the display as a list”. Displaying images in a list are well-understood, routine, and conventional insignificant extra-solution activity of data outputting.
Claim 9 recites “wherein the processor is configured to notify a user to check a region corresponding to the first region of interest in the second image of interest”. A person can mentally make an alert with the aid of a pen and paper to check if regions in two images line up.
Claim 10 recites “wherein the processor is configured to display a character string indicating the first region of interest and at least one of a symbol or a figure on the display as the notification”. Displaying a character string and a symbol as a notification are well-understood, routine, and conventional insignificant extra-solution activity of data outputting.
Claim 11 recites “wherein the processor is configured to: generate comparison information indicating a result of comparing the first region of interest in the first image of interest with a region corresponding to the first region of interest in the second image of interest; And display the comparison information on the display”. A person can mentally generate comparison information of the regions in two images and displaying this comparison information is a well-understood, routine, and conventional insignificant extra-solution activity of data outputting.
Claim 12 recites “wherein the processor is configured to highlight a region corresponding to the first region of interest in the second image of interest”. A person with the aid of a pen and paper can highlight a region in a second image.
Claim 13 recites “wherein the processor is configured to display a character string including a description regarding at least the first region of interest on the display in association with the first image of interest”. Displaying a character string is a well-understood, routine, and conventional insignificant extra-solution activity of data outputting.
Claim 14 recites “wherein the processor is configured to display an input field for receiving a character string including a description regarding the second image of interest on the display in association with the second image of interest”. Displaying an input field is a well-understood, routine, and conventional insignificant extra-solution activity of data outputting.
Claim 15 recites “wherein the processor is configured to display the first image of interest and the second image of interest on the display with the same display settings”. Displaying two images with the same settings is a well-understood, routine, and conventional insignificant extra-solution activity of data outputting.
Claim 16 recites “wherein the display settings are settings related to at least one of a resolution, a gradation, a brightness, a contrast, a window level, a window width, or a color of the first image of interest and the second image of interest”. These settings are a well-understood, routine, and conventional activities of adjustable settings in an application.
Claim 17 recites “wherein the processor is configured to, in a case in which a region corresponding to the first region of interest is not included in the second image of interest, provide a notification indicating that the region corresponding to the first region of interest is not included in the second image of interest”. A person with the aid of pen and paper can write down that a region in the first image is not included in the second image.
Claim 18 recites “wherein the first image and the second image are medical images; And the first region of interest is at least one of a region of a structure included in the medical image or a region of an abnormal shadow included in the medical image”. A person can determine if images are medical images and if a region of interest is a structure or abnormal shadow.
Claim 19 corresponds to claim 1. Thus, they are rejected for the same reasons as claim 1.
Claim 20 corresponds to claim 1, additionally reciting a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium. These are parts that are adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 11-16, 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kubo (US 20170069084 A1) in view of Yakami (US 20170300630 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kubo discloses an information processing apparatus comprising a processor (Kubo, paragraph [0112], "The computer may comprise one or more processors (e.g., central processing unit (CPU), micro processing unit (MPU)) and may include a network of separate computers or separate processors to read out and execute the computer executable instructions"), wherein the processor is configured to:
acquire a character string including a description regarding at least one first image obtained by imaging a subject at a first point in time; specify a first region of interest described in the character string; (Kubo, paragraph [0089], "Referring to FIG. 11, a medical image (current image) 1110 is a medical image corresponding to an interpretation text written by the user and displayed in a character string display region 1100"),
PNG
media_image1.png
358
501
media_image1.png
Greyscale
specify a first image of interest including the first region of interest from the first image (Kubo, paragraph [0049], "A symbol 311 indicated by x shows the position of interest set by the user"),
specify a second image of interest corresponding to the first image of interest from at least one second image obtained by imaging the subject at a second point in time (Kubo, paragraph [0089], "A medical image (past image) 1120 is an image of the same patient captured at a time point before the capturing time of the medical image 1110").
While Kubo discloses displaying images of interest on a display (Kubo, paragraph [0083], “Referring to FIG. 16, the image display region 310 includes the following partial regions”), they do not teach “display the first image of interest and the second image of interest on a display in association with each other”.
However, Yakami teaches display the first image of interest and the second image of interest on a display in association with each other (Yakami, paragraph [0033], "Areas 314a to 314d are areas in which medical images are displayed").
PNG
media_image2.png
650
468
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention of the instant application to display Kubo’s current, past, and subtraction image in one display screen, as taught by Yakami.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to recognize the change over time and compactly display them in one screen.
Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Kubo in view of Yakami to obtain the invention as specified in claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, Kubo in view of Yakami discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to specify the second image obtained by imaging the same position as the first image of interest as the second image of interest (Kubo, paragraph [0089], "A medical image (past image) 1120 is an image of the same patient captured at a time point before the capturing time of the medical image 1110", both images are captured at the same position").
Regarding claim 3, Kubo in view of Yakami discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to receive a selection of a portion of the character string to be used to specify the first region of interest (Kubo, paragraph [0090], "An example in which an interpretation text in the created interpretation report is “the intrapulmonary nodule has increased as a whole as compared to last time”, which is displayed in the character string display region 1100 shown in FIG. 11, will be described").
Regarding claim 4, Kubo in view of Yakami discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to, in a case in which a plurality of the first regions of interest described in the character string are specified, specify the first image of interest and the second image of interest for each of the plurality of first regions of interest (Kubo, paragraph [0089], "Referring to FIG. 11, a medical image (current image) 1110 is a medical image corresponding to an interpretation text written by the user and displayed in a character string display region 1100. A medical image (past image) 1120 is an image of the same patient captured at a time point before the capturing time of the medical image 1110", the region of interest is captured in both images).
Regarding claim 5, Kubo in view of Yakami discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 4, wherein the processor is configured to display the first image of interest and the second image of interest specified for each of the plurality of first regions of interest on the display in sequence (Yakami, paragraph [0033], "Areas 314a to 314d are areas in which medical images are displayed", the images displayed contain the regions of interests).
Regarding claim 6, Kubo in view of Yakami discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 5, wherein the processor is configured to display the first image of interest and the second image of interest on the display in sequence in an order according to a predetermined priority for each of the plurality of first regions of interest (Yakami, paragraph [0033], "Areas 314a to 314d are areas in which medical images are displayed", the images are displayed in accordance with present and past time).
Regarding claim 11, Kubo in view of Yakami discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to: generate comparison information indicating a result of comparing the first region of interest in the first image of interest with a region corresponding to the first region of interest in the second image of interest (Kubo, paragraph [0089], "A subtraction image 1130 is the subtraction image between the medical image 1110 and the medical image 1120"),
And display the comparison information on the display (Yakami, paragraph [0033], "Areas 314a to 314d are areas in which medical images are displayed", the subtraction image is displayed as modified in claim 1).
Regarding claim 12, Kubo in view of Yakami discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to highlight a region corresponding to the first region of interest in the second image of interest (Kubo, paragraph [0049], "A symbol 311 indicated by x shows the position of interest set by the user").
Regarding claim 13, Kubo in view of Yakami discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to display a character string including a description regarding at least the first region of interest on the display in association with the first image of interest (Kubo, paragraph [0090], "An example in which an interpretation text in the created interpretation report is “the intrapulmonary nodule has increased as a whole as compared to last time”, which is displayed in the character string display region 1100 shown in FIG. 11").
Regarding claim 14, Kubo in view of Yakami discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to display an input field for receiving a character string including a description regarding the second image of interest on the display in association with the second image of interest (Kubo, paragraph [0085], "The character string display region is displayed using the method described with reference to FIG. 9C. The user can input or edit an arbitrary character string (to be referred to as a finding hereinafter) in the character string display region using the operation unit 35 such as a keyboard.").
Regarding claim 15, Kubo in view of Yakami discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to display the first image of interest and the second image of interest on the display with the same display settings (Yakami, paragraph [0033], "Areas 314a to 314d are areas in which medical images are displayed", images are displayed next to each other with no configured changes in size, brightness, etc.).
Regarding claim 16, Kubo in view of Yakami discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 15.
Kubo in view of Yakami does not teach “wherein the display settings are settings related to at least one of a resolution, a gradation, a brightness, a contrast, a window level, a window width, or a color of the first image of interest and the second image of interest”
However, Yakami additionally teaches wherein the display settings are settings related to at least one of a resolution, a gradation, a brightness, a contrast, a window level, a window width, or a color of the first image of interest and the second image of interest (Yakami, paragraph [0033], "In these areas, it is possible to move a slice position to he displayed, change an image display condition such as WL (Window Level)/WW (Window Width), and display a graphical image such as ROI (Region of Interest)").
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention of the instant application to modify Kubo’s (in view of Yakami) images based on window level/window width, as additionally taught by Yakami.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to allow users to customize and improve the visualization of images.
Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Kubo in view of Yakami with the additional teachings of Yakami to obtain the invention as specified in claim 16.
Regarding claim 18, Kubo in view of Yakami discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the first image and the second image are medical images (Kubo, paragraph [0089], "A medical image (past image) 1120 is an image of the same patient captured at a time point before the capturing time of the medical image 1110"),
And the first region of interest is at least one of a region of a structure included in the medical image or a region of an abnormal shadow included in the medical image (Kubo, paragraph [0051], "An example in which “a solid nodule is observed in the right lung S2 region” is described as the interpretation text of an interpretation report, as shown in FIG. 3, will be described below.", nodule is a structure).
Claim 19 corresponds to claim 1. Thus, they are rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as claim 1.
Claim 20 corresponds to claim 1, additionally reciting a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing an information processing program for causing a computer to execute a process (Kubo, paragraph [0112], “Embodiment(s) of the present invention can also be realized by a computer of a system or apparatus that reads out and executes computer executable instructions (e.g., one or more programs) recorded on a storage medium (which may also be referred to more fully as a ‘non-transitory computer-readable storage medium’) to perform the functions of one or more of the above-described embodiment(s) and/or that includes one or more circuits (e.g., application specific integrated circuit (ASIC)) for performing the functions of one or more of the above-described embodiment(s)”). Thus, they are rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as claim 1.
Claim(s) 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kubo (US 20170069084 A1) in view of Yakami (US 20170300630 A1) and in further view of Exploring Life on Youtube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Us0zADFu1_g).
Regarding claim 7, Kubo in view of Yakami discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 5.
Kubo in view of Yakami does not teach “wherein the processor is configured to: display an input field for receiving a character string including a description regarding the second image of interest on the display in association with the second image of interest; And display a next first image of interest and a next second image of interest on the display after receiving the character string including the description regarding the second image of interest in the input field”.
However, Exploring Life teaches wherein the processor is configured to: display an input field for receiving a character string including a description regarding the second image of interest on the display in association with the second image of interest; And display a next first image of interest and a next second image of interest on the display after receiving the character string including the description regarding the second image of interest in the input field (Exploring Life, 1:52, screenshot below).
PNG
media_image3.png
733
1320
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention of the instant application to implement a search function for Kubo’s (in view of Yakami) images and display them, as taught by Exploring Life.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to easily search for images that pertain to the region in question.
Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Kubo in view of Yakami and in further view of Exploring Life to obtain the invention as specified in claim 7.
Claim(s) 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kubo (US 20170069084 A1) in view of Yakami (US 20170300630 A1) and in further view of Vic Mann on Youtube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WrHS04BA3hY).
Regarding claim 8, Kubo in view of Yakami discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 4.
Kubo in view of Yakami does not teach “wherein the processor is configured to display the first image of interest and the second image of interest specified for each of the plurality of first regions of interest on the display as a list”.
However, Vic Mann teaches wherein the processor is configured to display the first image of interest and the second image of interest specified for each of the plurality of first regions of interest on the display as a list (Vic Mann, 1:12, screenshot below).
PNG
media_image4.png
755
1317
media_image4.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention of the instant application to display Kubo’s (in view of Yakami) images as a list, as taught by Vic Mann.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to allow for easier visibility when dealing with multiple lists.
Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Kubo in view of Yakami and in further view of Vic Mann to obtain the invention as specified in claim 8.
Claim(s) 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kubo (US 20170069084 A1) in view of Yakami (US 20170300630 A1) and in further view of Kayla Le Roux on Youtube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LN5cv8gbP3I).
Regarding claim 9, Kubo in view of Yakami discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 1.
Kubo in view of Yakami does not teach “wherein the processor is configured to notify a user to check a region corresponding to the first region of interest in the second image of interest”.
However, Kayla Le Roux teaches wherein the processor is configured to notify a user to check a region corresponding to the first region of interest in the second image of interest (Kayla, Le Roux, 1:15, screenshot below).
PNG
media_image5.png
734
1319
media_image5.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention of the instant application to implement a notification system to remind Kubo’s (in view of Yakami) users to check regions in both their images, as taught by Kayla Le Roux.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to ensure the user is viewing the same region of interest on both images.
Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Kubo in view of Yakami and in further view of Kayla Le Roux to obtain the invention as specified in claim 9.
Regarding claim 10, Kubo in view of Yakami and Kayla Le Roux discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 9, wherein the processor is configured to display a character string indicating the first region of interest (Kubo, paragraph [0079], “In FIG. 9A, the display position determination conditions in step S205 are set to “the entire character string display region is located inside the medical image” and “the character string display region does not overlap the inside of the position-of-interest region”.”) and at least one of a symbol or a figure on the display as the notification (Kayla, Le Roux, 1:15, screenshot above, there is a symbol on the Reminders app).
Claim(s) 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kubo (US 20170069084 A1) in view of Yakami (US 20170300630 A1) and in further view of Gui (US 20210080531 A1).
Regarding claim 17, Kubo in view of Yakami discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 1.
Kubo in view of Yakami does not teach “wherein the processor is configured to, in a case in which a region corresponding to the first region of interest is not included in the second image of interest, provide a notification indicating that the region corresponding to the first region of interest is not included in the second image of interest”.
However, Gui teaches wherein the processor is configured to, in a case in which a region corresponding to the first region of interest is not included in the second image of interest, provide a notification indicating that the region corresponding to the first region of interest is not included in the second image of interest (Gui, paragraph [0072], " If the output indicates that the left knee is being imaged while the scanning protocol dictates that the right knee is the knee to be imaged, a mismatch may be indicated. If the anatomical ROI, FOV, and/or RF coil position do not match the scanning protocol, method 400 proceeds to 407 to output a notification of the mismatch").
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention of the instant application to provide a notification if the regions do not correspond in Kubo’s (in view of Yakami) images, as taught by Gui.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to allow users to recognize they are not viewing the same region of interest, thus increasing awareness.
Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Kubo in view of Yakami and in further view of Gui to obtain the invention as specified in claim 17.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WAYNE ZHANG whose telephone number is (571) 272-0245. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10:00-6:00 EST.
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, Ms. Sumati Lefkowitz can be reached on (571) 272-3638. 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.
/WAYNE ZHANG/Examiner, Art Unit 2672
/SUMATI LEFKOWITZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2672
Prosecution Insights