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 Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Li et al. (JP 2018079000 A), hereinafter Li.
Regarding claim 1, Li teaches An image cutout support apparatus for cutting out a typical image including an object to be diagnosed by a user from video image data, the image cutout support apparatus comprising: a first processor configured to: input the video image data; (Para. 20 see "The image processing unit 170 generates ultrasound image data by using the phased signal generated by the reception beam former 160 and extracts a cross section image section that is optimal for cardiac function measurement from the cross sectional image group including the previously captured ultrasound image Select an image. Then, the display unit 180 displays the ultrasound image generated by the image processing unit 170 or a cross-sectional image most suitable for the selected measurement." Para. 22 see "The measurement section determination unit 173 reads out a plurality of cross-sectional images of one patient out of the image data stored in the data memory 172. The image data read from the data memory 172 may be image data extracted from the moving image data captured in a two-dimensional cross section at the cardiac timing such as the end diastole or the end systole." Para. 29 see "At least one of the ROM 206 and the RAM 207 stores in advance a program for calculation processing of the CPU 205 and various data necessary for realizing operations of various functional blocks of the measurement section determination unit 173 of the image processing unit 170. By executing a program stored in at least one of the ROM 206 and the RAM 207, the CPU 205 implements various processes of the measurement section determination unit 173 of the image processing unit 170. It is to be noted that the program executed by the CPU 205 may be stored in a storage unit 208 or a storage medium such as an optical disk not shown, and the program may be read and stored in the RAM 207."). select a candidate image group related to the typical image from the video image data by performing image analysis on the video image data; (Para. 23 see " the measurement section determination unit 173 of the present embodiment is configured to determine anatomical information for extracting anatomical information on a plurality of cross-sectional images read out from the image data stored in the data memory 172 A comparison target group generation unit 202 for generating a comparison target group by using anatomical information, a comparison unit 203 for performing a comparison process for each comparison object group, and a comparison unit 203 for comparing cross-sectional images And a comparison result determination unit 204 for determining a cross-sectional image optimal for measurement." Para. 25 see "the comparison target group generation unit 202 uses the anatomical information extracted by the anatomical information extraction unit 201 on a plurality of images read out from the data memory 172, to determine which crosssectional image is which view Is a functional block for generating a comparison target group of cross-sectional images which is an optimum combination in comparison performed for determining whether the image is a captured image and is a sectional image optimum for measurement."). and give a priority to each image of the candidate image group based on at least one of the image analysis or information of the user. (Para. 46 see "The comparing unit 203 outputs the score obtained in this way as a relationship between each image pair, that is, as a relationship between sectional images. " Para. 47 see "The comparison result determination unit 204 uses the relationship between the cross-sectional images, which is the comparison result performed by the comparison unit 203, to determine the comparison result group, which differs depending on the comparison target group determined by the comparison target group generation unit 202, Based on a determination rule for determining a sectional image optimum for measurement, a sectional image optimum for measurement is determined. That is, the comparison result determination unit 204 selects an image optimal for cardiac function measurement by making a determination using the relationship between the cross-sectional images, which is the score calculated by the comparison unit 203." Examiner note: Each image is scored, the highest score from the group is selected as the best image.).
Regarding claim 18, Li teaches The image cutout support apparatus according to claim 1. An ultrasound diagnostic apparatus comprising: an ultrasound probe; (Para. 9 see "an ultrasonic diagnostic apparatus that transmits an ultrasonic wave to an object to be inspected and uses a reflected wave from an object to be inspected, the ultrasonic diagnostic apparatus comprising: a transceiver for transmitting and receiving ultrasonic waves to and from an object to be inspected; , An image processing unit which generates image data based on a reception signal of the transmission / reception unit and decides a cross-sectional image most suitable for measurement, and a display unit which displays a sectional image optimum for measurement determined in the image processing unit, A processing unit provides an ultrasonic diagnostic apparatus configured to generate a comparison target group of sectional images for comparison performed to determine a sectional image optimum for measurement."). a second processor configured to transmit and receive an ultrasound beam to and from a subject using the ultrasound probe to generate video image data; (Para. 15 see "The ultrasonic diagnostic apparatus 100 of the present embodiment includes a probe 110, a transmission beam former 120, a D / A converter 130, an A / D converter 140, a beam former memory 150, a reception beam former 160, an image A processing unit 170, and a display unit 180."). and the image cutout support apparatus according to claim 1, (Para. 20 see "The image processing unit 170 generates ultrasound image data by using the phased signal generated by the reception beam former 160 and extracts a cross section image section that is optimal for cardiac function measurement from the cross sectional image group including the previously captured ultrasound image Select an image. Then, the display unit 180 displays the ultrasound image generated by the image processing unit 170 or a cross-sectional image most suitable for the selected measurement." Para. 22 see "The measurement section determination unit 173 reads out a plurality of cross-sectional images of one patient out of the image data stored in the data memory 172. The image data read from the data memory 172 may be image data extracted from the moving image data captured in a two-dimensional cross section at the cardiac timing such as the end diastole or the end systole." Para. 29 see "At least one of the ROM 206 and the RAM 207 stores in advance a program for calculation processing of the CPU 205 and various data necessary for realizing operations of various functional blocks of the measurement section determination unit 173 of the image processing unit 170. By executing a program stored in at least one of the ROM 206 and the RAM 207, the CPU 205 implements various processes of the measurement section determination unit 173 of the image processing unit 170. It is to be noted that the program executed by the CPU 205 may be stored in a storage unit 208 or a storage medium such as an optical disk not shown, and the program may be read and stored in the RAM 207."). wherein the video image data generated by the second processor is input to the video image data input unit. (Para. 9 see " An image processing unit which generates image data based on a reception signal of the transmission / reception unit and decides a cross-sectional image most suitable for measurement, and a display unit which displays a sectional image optimum for measurement determined in the image processing unit, A processing unit provides an ultrasonic diagnostic apparatus configured to generate a comparison target group of sectional images for comparison performed to determine a sectional image optimum for measurement. ").
Claim 19 is rejected under the same analysis as claim 1 above.
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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (JP 2018079000 A), hereinafter Li, in view of Cherevatsky et al. (US 9324145 B1), hereinafter Cherevatsky.
Regarding claim 2, Li teaches The image cutout support apparatus according to claim 1.
Li does not teach wherein the first processor is configured to extract images from the video image data for every predetermined number of frames.
However, Cherevatsky teaches wherein the first processor is configured to extract images from the video image data for every predetermined number of frames. (Col. 1, Lines 47-49 see "A subset of images from the stream may be selected for analysis." Col. 20, Lines 58-64 see " one out of every predetermined number of captured frames may be selected for segment analysis. In one example, 2,000 images may be selected from the image stream, e.g. one out of every 100 images may be selected in a sequence of 200,000 sequentially numbered frames in the received image stream. For example, frame index numbers 1, 101, 201, etc. may be selected.").
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Li to incorporate the teachings of Cherevatsky to extract images from video image data every predetermined number of frames. Doing so would predictably save on financial costs by reducing the number of frames needed to be processed which would require less computational resources and energy. Furthermore, this would reduce the number of images that would need to be viewed by a user saving them time.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (JP 2018079000 A), hereinafter Li, in view of Cherevatsky et al. (US 9324145 B1), hereinafter Cherevatsky, and Hirota et al. (US 20190231198 A1), hereinafter Hirota.
Regarding claim 7, Li in view of Cherevatsky teaches The image cutout support apparatus according to claim 2.
In addition, Li teaches wherein the first processor is configured to: perform organ determination on each image of the candidate image group; (Para. 24 see "The anatomical information extraction unit 201 extracts the anatomical information depicted in the crosssectional image by image processing or machine learning for a plurality of cross-sectional images which are image data read from the data memory 172 It is a functional block. As described above, the anatomical information is information on a structure of a living body or an organ that enables estimation of a position in a living body or an organ.").
Li does not teach and give a higher priority to at least one image of the candidate image group including any organ than other images of the candidate image group.
However, Hirota teaches and give a higher priority to at least one image of the candidate image group including any organ than other images of the candidate image group. (Para. 139 see "The image selection unit 33 may acquire a group of ultrasound images acquired at the same scan as the group of second photoacoustic image candidates, specify an ultrasound image including, for example, a characteristic pattern, such as a bone or an organ, from the group of ultrasound images, select only the second photoacoustic image candidate acquired at the same timing as the specified ultrasound image, and store the selected second photoacoustic image candidate in the past image storage unit 27.").
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Li and Cherevatsky to incorporate the teachings of Hirota to give higher priority to images including any organ. Doing so would predictably save a user's time when an image is displayed to a user by prioritizing more relevant images.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (JP 2018079000 A), hereinafter Li, in view of Cherevatsky et al. (US 9324145 B1), hereinafter Cherevatsky, and Gardner et al. (US 20050033179 A1), hereinafter Gardner.
Regarding claim 13, Li in view of Cherevatsky teaches The image cutout support apparatus according to claim 2.
Li does not teach wherein the first processor is configured to give a high priority to at least one image of the candidate image group where a preference of the user has been reflected than other images of the candidate image group, by referring to the information of the user.
However, Gardner teaches wherein the first processor is configured to give a high priority to at least one image of the candidate image group where a preference of the user has been reflected than other images of the candidate image group, by referring to the information of the user. (Abstract see "a stored user-preference of a phase of the heart cycle is used to automatically select an ultrasound image from a set of images." Para. 36 see "This image can be manually selected by a user or automatically selected by identifying which image from the set is associated with a phase in a stored user-preference.").
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Li and Cherevatsky to incorporate the teachings of Gardner to give higher priority to images according to user information. Doing so would predictably save a user's time when an image is displayed by prioritizing more relevant images that they wish to see when specified by the user.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (JP 2018079000 A), hereinafter Li, in view of Chen et al.: "An adaptive redundant image elimination for Wireless Capsule Endoscopy review based on temporal correlation and color-texture feature similarity", IEEE.org, Submitted 10 September 2015, [retrieved on 7-13-2026]. Retrieved from the internet <https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/7251973>, hereinafter Chen.
Regarding claim 3, Li teaches The image cutout support apparatus according to claim 1.
Li does not teach wherein the first processor is configured to exclude similar images located in neighborhood frames from an object to be selected as the candidate image group.
However, Chen teaches wherein the first processor is configured to exclude similar images located in neighborhood frames from an object to be selected as the candidate image group. (Abstract see "This paper proposes an approach to eliminate redundant images adaptively for Wireless Capsule Endoscopy (WCE) video summarization by considering temporal correlation and feature similarity between adjacent WCE frames." Pg. 2, Col. 1, Para. 2 see "considering the properties of color-texture feature similarity and temporal correlation, the WCE redundant images elimination system is designed as shown in Fig. 2. ").
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Li to incorporate the teachings of Chen to exclude similar images located in neighborhood frames. Doing so would predictably save on financial costs by reducing the number of frames needed to be processed which would require less computational resources and energy. Furthermore, this would reduce the number of images that would need to be viewed by a user saving them time.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (JP 2018079000 A), hereinafter Li, in view of Chen et al.: "An adaptive redundant image elimination for Wireless Capsule Endoscopy review based on temporal correlation and color-texture feature similarity", IEEE.org, Submitted 10 September 2015, [retrieved on 7-13-2026]. Retrieved from the internet <https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/7251973>, hereinafter Chen, and Hirota et al. (US 20190231198 A1), hereinafter Hirota.
Regarding claim 8, Li in view of Chen teaches The image cutout support apparatus according to claim 3.
In addition, Li teaches wherein the first processor is configured to: perform organ determination on each image of the candidate image group; (Para. 24 see "The anatomical information extraction unit 201 extracts the anatomical information depicted in the crosssectional image by image processing or machine learning for a plurality of cross-sectional images which are image data read from the data memory 172 It is a functional block. As described above, the anatomical information is information on a structure of a living body or an organ that enables estimation of a position in a living body or an organ.").
Li does not teach and give a higher priority to at least one image of the candidate image group including any organ than other images of the candidate image group.
However, Hirota teaches and give a higher priority to at least one image of the candidate image group including any organ than other images of the candidate image group. (Para. 139 see "The image selection unit 33 may acquire a group of ultrasound images acquired at the same scan as the group of second photoacoustic image candidates, specify an ultrasound image including, for example, a characteristic pattern, such as a bone or an organ, from the group of ultrasound images, select only the second photoacoustic image candidate acquired at the same timing as the specified ultrasound image, and store the selected second photoacoustic image candidate in the past image storage unit 27.").
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Li and Chen to incorporate the teachings of Hirota to give higher priority to images including any organ. Doing so would predictably save a user's time when an image is displayed to a user by prioritizing more relevant images.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (JP 2018079000 A), hereinafter Li, in view of Chen et al.: "An adaptive redundant image elimination for Wireless Capsule Endoscopy review based on temporal correlation and color-texture feature similarity", IEEE.org, Submitted 10 September 2015, [retrieved on 7-13-2026]. Retrieved from the internet <https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/7251973>, hereinafter Chen, and Gardner et al. (US 20050033179 A1), hereinafter Gardner.
Regarding claim 14, Li in view of Chen teaches The image cutout support apparatus according to claim 3.
Li does not teach wherein the first processor is configured to give a high priority to at least one image of the candidate image group where a preference of the user has been reflected than other images of the candidate image group, by referring to the information of the user.
However, Gardner teaches wherein the first processor is configured to give a high priority to at least one image of the candidate image group where a preference of the user has been reflected than other images of the candidate image group, by referring to the information of the user. (Abstract see "a stored user-preference of a phase of the heart cycle is used to automatically select an ultrasound image from a set of images." Para. 36 see "This image can be manually selected by a user or automatically selected by identifying which image from the set is associated with a phase in a stored user-preference.").
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Li and Chen to incorporate the teachings of Gardner to give higher priority to images according to user information. Doing so would predictably save a user's time when an image is displayed by prioritizing more relevant images that they wish to see when specified by the user.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (JP 2018079000 A), hereinafter Li, in view of Ebata (US 20180168546 A1), hereinafter Ebata.
Regarding claim 4, Li teaches The image cutout support apparatus according to claim 1.
Li does not teach wherein the first processor is configured to exclude an image indicating an aerial emission state from an object to be selected as the candidate image group.
However, Ebata teaches wherein the first processor is configured to exclude an image indicating an aerial emission state from an object to be selected as the candidate image group. (Para. 67 see "in a case in which it is determined that the ultrasound probe 1 is separated from the subject and is in the aerial emission state, the part determination unit 11 does not perform part determination… Therefore, the part determination process for the frame that does not require part determination can be omitted and it is possible to prevent an increase in the amount of calculation." Examiner note: Frames determined to be in an aerial emission state are excluded from further image processing.).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Li to incorporate the teachings of Ebata to exclude images from an aerial emission state when there is no important data on the subject being gathered. Doing so would predictably save on financial costs by reducing the number of frames needed to be processed which would require less computational resources and energy. Furthermore, this would reduce the number of images that would need to be viewed by a user saving them time.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (JP 2018079000 A), hereinafter Li, in view of Ebata (US 20180168546 A1), hereinafter Ebata, and Hirota et al. (US 20190231198 A1), hereinafter Hirota.
Regarding claim 9, Li in view of Ebata teaches The image cutout support apparatus according to claim 4.
In addition, Li teaches wherein the first processor is configured to: perform organ determination on each image of the candidate image group; (Para. 24 see "The anatomical information extraction unit 201 extracts the anatomical information depicted in the crosssectional image by image processing or machine learning for a plurality of cross-sectional images which are image data read from the data memory 172 It is a functional block. As described above, the anatomical information is information on a structure of a living body or an organ that enables estimation of a position in a living body or an organ.").
Li does not teach and give a higher priority to at least one image of the candidate image group including any organ than other images of the candidate image group.
However, Hirota teaches and give a higher priority to at least one image of the candidate image group including any organ than other images of the candidate image group. (Para. 139 see "The image selection unit 33 may acquire a group of ultrasound images acquired at the same scan as the group of second photoacoustic image candidates, specify an ultrasound image including, for example, a characteristic pattern, such as a bone or an organ, from the group of ultrasound images, select only the second photoacoustic image candidate acquired at the same timing as the specified ultrasound image, and store the selected second photoacoustic image candidate in the past image storage unit 27.").
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Li and Ebata to incorporate the teachings of Hirota to give higher priority to images including any organ. Doing so would predictably save a user's time when an image is displayed to a user by prioritizing more relevant images.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (JP 2018079000 A), hereinafter Li, in view of Ebata (US 20180168546 A1), hereinafter Ebata, and Gardner et al. (US 20050033179 A1), hereinafter Gardner.
Regarding claim 15, Li in view of Ebata teaches The image cutout support apparatus according to claim 4.
Li does not teach wherein the first processor is configured to give a high priority to at least one image of the candidate image group where a preference of the user has been reflected than other images of the candidate image group, by referring to the information of the user.
However, Gardner teaches wherein the first processor is configured to give a high priority to at least one image of the candidate image group where a preference of the user has been reflected than other images of the candidate image group, by referring to the information of the user. (Abstract see "a stored user-preference of a phase of the heart cycle is used to automatically select an ultrasound image from a set of images." Para. 36 see "This image can be manually selected by a user or automatically selected by identifying which image from the set is associated with a phase in a stored user-preference.").
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Li and Ebata to incorporate the teachings of Gardner to give higher priority to images according to user information. Doing so would predictably save a user's time when an image is displayed by prioritizing more relevant images that they wish to see when specified by the user.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (JP 2018079000 A), hereinafter Li, in view of Graule et al. (US 20210217166 A1), hereinafter Graule.
Regarding claim 5, Li teaches The image cutout support apparatus according to claim 1.
Li does not teach wherein the first processor is configured to exclude an image having quality equal to or less than a predetermined threshold value from an object to be selected as the candidate image group.
However, Graule teaches wherein the first processor is configured to exclude an image having quality equal to or less than a predetermined threshold value from an object to be selected as the candidate image group. (Para. 92 see "if the image-quality score is above the predetermined image-quality threshold, indicating that the image quality is insufficient to enable a reliable medical assessment, then, at S150, the image is rejected from further evaluation and a rejection notification is automatically generated by the system and transmitted to the requester. In the above example in which the image-quality score of 8.0 was determined, the image may be rejected from further evaluation regardless of the modality of the image, if none of the predetermined image-quality thresholds for the various possible modalities has a value of 8 or above. At S155, the rejected image is removed from the medical evaluation facility's valuation queue.").
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Li to incorporate the teachings of Graule to exclude images with low quality where data gathered on the subject is difficult to see. Doing so would predictably save on financial costs by reducing the number of frames needed to be processed which would require less computational resources and energy. Furthermore, this would reduce the number of images that would need to be viewed by a user saving them time.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (JP 2018079000 A), hereinafter Li, in view of Graule et al. (US 20210217166 A1), hereinafter Graule, and Hirota et al. (US 20190231198 A1), hereinafter Hirota.
Regarding claim 10, Li in view of Graule teaches The image cutout support apparatus according to claim 5.
In addition, Li teaches wherein the first processor is configured to: perform organ determination on each image of the candidate image group; (Para. 24 see "The anatomical information extraction unit 201 extracts the anatomical information depicted in the crosssectional image by image processing or machine learning for a plurality of cross-sectional images which are image data read from the data memory 172 It is a functional block. As described above, the anatomical information is information on a structure of a living body or an organ that enables estimation of a position in a living body or an organ.").
Li does not teach and give a higher priority to at least one image of the candidate image group including any organ than other images of the candidate image group.
However, Hirota teaches and give a higher priority to at least one image of the candidate image group including any organ than other images of the candidate image group. (Para. 139 see "The image selection unit 33 may acquire a group of ultrasound images acquired at the same scan as the group of second photoacoustic image candidates, specify an ultrasound image including, for example, a characteristic pattern, such as a bone or an organ, from the group of ultrasound images, select only the second photoacoustic image candidate acquired at the same timing as the specified ultrasound image, and store the selected second photoacoustic image candidate in the past image storage unit 27.").
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Li and Graule to incorporate the teachings of Hirota to give higher priority to images including any organ. Doing so would predictably save a user's time when an image is displayed to a user by prioritizing more relevant images.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (JP 2018079000 A), hereinafter Li, in view of Graule et al. (US 20210217166 A1), hereinafter Graule, and Gardner et al. (US 20050033179 A1), hereinafter Gardner.
Regarding claim 16, Li in view of Graule teaches The image cutout support apparatus according to claim 5.
Li does not teach wherein the first processor is configured to give a high priority to at least one image of the candidate image group where a preference of the user has been reflected than other images of the candidate image group, by referring to the information of the user.
However, Gardner teaches wherein the first processor is configured to give a high priority to at least one image of the candidate image group where a preference of the user has been reflected than other images of the candidate image group, by referring to the information of the user. (Abstract see "a stored user-preference of a phase of the heart cycle is used to automatically select an ultrasound image from a set of images." Para. 36 see "This image can be manually selected by a user or automatically selected by identifying which image from the set is associated with a phase in a stored user-preference.").
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Li and Graule to incorporate the teachings of Gardner to give higher priority to images according to user information. Doing so would predictably save a user's time when an image is displayed by prioritizing more relevant images that they wish to see when specified by the user.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (JP 2018079000 A), hereinafter Li, in view of Hirota et al. (US 20190231198 A1), hereinafter Hirota.
Regarding claim 6, Li teaches The image cutout support apparatus according to claim 1. wherein the first processor is configured to: perform organ determination on each image of the candidate image group; (Para. 24 see "The anatomical information extraction unit 201 extracts the anatomical information depicted in the crosssectional image by image processing or machine learning for a plurality of cross-sectional images which are image data read from the data memory 172 It is a functional block. As described above, the anatomical information is information on a structure of a living body or an organ that enables estimation of a position in a living body or an organ.").
Li does not teach and give a higher priority to at least one image of the candidate image group including any organ than other images of the candidate image group.
However, Hirota teaches and give a higher priority to at least one image of the candidate image group including any organ than other images of the candidate image group. (Para. 139 see "The image selection unit 33 may acquire a group of ultrasound images acquired at the same scan as the group of second photoacoustic image candidates, specify an ultrasound image including, for example, a characteristic pattern, such as a bone or an organ, from the group of ultrasound images, select only the second photoacoustic image candidate acquired at the same timing as the specified ultrasound image, and store the selected second photoacoustic image candidate in the past image storage unit 27.").
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Li to incorporate the teachings of Hirota to give higher priority to images including any organ. Doing so would predictably save a user's time when an image is displayed to a user by prioritizing more relevant images.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (JP 2018079000 A), hereinafter Li, in view of Hirota et al. (US 20190231198 A1), hereinafter Hirota, and Bar-Aviv et al. (US 20090028403 A1), hereinafter Bar-Aviv, and Gardner et al. (US 20050033179 A1), hereinafter Gardner.
Regarding claim 11, Li in view of Hirota teaches The image cutout support apparatus according to claim 6.
While Li discloses a first processor to process user information relating to a higher priority of an image, Li does not teach wherein the first processor is configured to give a further higher priority to an image among the at least one image including an organ which is related to the information of the user.
However, Bar-Aviv teaches wherein the first processor is configured to give a further higher priority to an image among the at least one image including an organ (Abstract see "A system for analyzing a source medical image of a body organ… a feature extraction unit that is designed for obtaining a number of features of the body organ from the source medical image, and a classification unit that is designed for estimating a priority level according to the features." Para. 22 see "obtaining a plurality of features of the body organ from the segmented source medical image and a classification unit for estimating a priority level for the source medical image according to the features." Para. 122 see "the priority level is chosen from at least three predefined priority levels.").
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Li and Hirota to incorporate the teachings of Bar-Aviv to give a further higher priority to images including any organ. Doing so would predictably save a user's time when an image is displayed to a user by prioritizing more relevant images.
Furthermore, Gardner teaches which is related to the information of the user. (Para. 36 see "an image can be automatically selected based on one or more visual characteristics of an image, such as the shape of the heart and/or the state of the valves. In this way, visual characteristics are used to identify a phase in the heart cycle. In operation, an image from a set of images associated with a heart cycle is selected. This image can be manually selected by a user or automatically selected by identifying which image from the set is associated with a phase in a stored user-preference.").
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Li and Hirota and Bar-Aviv to incorporate the teachings of Gardner to give higher priority to images including any organ according to user information. Doing so would predictably save a user's time when an image is displayed by prioritizing more relevant images that they wish to see when specified by the user.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (JP 2018079000 A), hereinafter Li, in view of Gardner et al. (US 20050033179 A1), hereinafter Gardner.
Regarding claim 12, Li teaches The image cutout support apparatus according to claim 1.
Li does not teach wherein the first processor is configured to give a high priority to at least one image of the candidate image group where a preference of the user has been reflected than other images of the candidate image group, by referring to the information of the user.
However, Gardner teaches wherein the first processor is configured to give a high priority to at least one image of the candidate image group where a preference of the user has been reflected than other images of the candidate image group, by referring to the information of the user. (Abstract see "a stored user-preference of a phase of the heart cycle is used to automatically select an ultrasound image from a set of images." Para. 36 see "This image can be manually selected by a user or automatically selected by identifying which image from the set is associated with a phase in a stored user-preference.").
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Li to incorporate the teachings of Gardner to give higher priority to images according to user information. Doing so would predictably save a user's time when an image is displayed by prioritizing more relevant images that they wish to see when specified by the user.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (JP 2018079000 A), hereinafter Li, in view of Zhao et al. (US 20150089365 A1), hereinafter Zhao.
Regarding claim 17, Li teaches The image cutout support apparatus according to claim 1.
Li does not teach wherein the first processor is configured to perform image processing according to a preference of the user based on the information of the user.
However, Zhao teaches wherein the first processor is configured to perform image processing according to a preference of the user based on the information of the user. (Para. 65 see "automatic image processing system 150 presents automatic image processing GUI 302 at client 300. GUI 302 provides a simple or automated user interface to interact with a user, for example, via a wizard, to guide the user to "walk" through a series of the major steps of image processing operations without requiring the user to know or provide detailed information of the processing operations... Alternatively, the image processing operations may be determined based on a set of rules that is formulated based on the prior interactions or user preferences of the user.").
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Li to incorporate the teachings of Zhao to perform image processing according to a user preference. Doing so would predictably increase speed and accuracy when diagnosing a subject by allowing a user to specify image processing thereby making features in the image more visible.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Kitamura et al. (US 20160379363 A1) discloses an image processing apparatus that detects regions of interest in the body from a group of a series of images.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER VAUGHN whose telephone number is (571) 272-5253. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 11am-7pm.
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, JENNIFER MEHMOOD can be reached on (571) 272-2976. 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.
/ALEXANDER VAUGHN/Examiner, Art Unit 2675
/JENNIFER MEHMOOD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2664
Prosecution Insights