DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “an acquisition unit”, “a determination unit”, and “a prompt unit” in claims 9-15.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Under Step 1, claims 1-7 are a method, claim 8 is a system and claims 9-15 are an apparatus. Under Step 2A Prong One, all claims recite abstract ideas, specifically mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III). These mental processes are more particularly recited in claim 1 as: determining, based on the image, whether an isolation pad is present at a predetermined part of the detection object. These steps can be performed in the human mind by looking at an image and visually identifying the presence of an isolation pad. Claims 8 and 9 recite the same functions. Dependent claims 2-7 and 10-15 provide additional limitations that are further part of the abstract idea of determining the presence of an isolation pad.
It is noted that the above analysis is according to the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance published in the Federal Register (84 FR 50) on January 7, 2019 and MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Consider also that “If a claim recites a limitation that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper, the limitation falls within the mental processes grouping, and the claim recites an abstract idea” as per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(B). See also footnotes 14 and 15 of the Federal Register Notice.
Under Step 2A Prong Two, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because each of claims 1-15 do not recite additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application. The additional elements of acquiring an image and outputting information related to the result of the determination in claims 1, 8, and 9 adds insignificant extra-solution activity, which is not indicative of integration into a practical application as per MPEP 2106.05(g). The additional elements (memory, processor, and computer program of claim 8; acquisition unit, determination unit, and prompt unit of claim 9) are recited at a high level of generality and merely equate to “apply it” or otherwise merely uses a generic computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea which is not indicative of integration into a practical application as per MPEP 2106.05(f). See also MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) with respect to Mental Processes: “Nor do the courts distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer”. See also MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C)(3) “Using a computer as tool to perform a mental process” and MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(D), as well as the case law cited therein.
Under Step 2B, each of claims 1-15 do not recite additional elements that are indicative of an inventive concept. The additional elements are simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception as per MPEP 2106.05(d) and 2106.07(a)III. In other words, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Regarding claims 2-7 and 10-15, additional limitations are directed to the abstract idea of identifying the presence of an isolation pad, which may be performed in the human mind with or without the use of a physical aid such as a pen and paper, as described above. The addition of further judicial exceptions does not amount to significantly more (see MPEP 2106.05(I)).
For all of the above reasons, taken alone or in combination, claims 1-15 recite a non-statutory mental process.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 8, and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by IPCOM000236073D (hereinafter referred to as ‘073D).
As per claim 1, ‘073D teaches a method for detecting an isolation pad in medical imaging (‘073D, figs. 3, 7, and 15 and pg. 9 lines 1-9, pg. 14 lines 1-5, pg. 16 lines 1-7, and pg. 19 lines 1-11: The method identifies presence or absence of isolation pads), wherein the method comprises: acquiring an image of a detection object captured via a camera (‘073D, figs. 3, 7, and 15 and pg. 9 lines 1-9, pg. 14 lines 1-5, pg. 16 lines 1-7, and pg. 19 lines 1-11: Images are acquired via a camera for analysis); determining, based on the image, whether an isolation pad is present at a predetermined part of the detection object (‘073D, figs. 3, 7, and 15 and pg. 9 lines 1-9, pg. 14 lines 1-5, pg. 16 lines 1-7, and pg. 19 lines 1-11: The method identifies presence or absence of isolation pads); and outputting information related to a result of the determination (‘073D, figs. 3, 7, and 15 and pg. 9 lines 1-9, pg. 14 lines 1-5, pg. 16 lines 1-7, and pg. 19 lines 1-11: The technician is notified regarding the presence or absence of isolation pads).
As per claim 8, ‘073D teaches all the claim limitations of claim 1 and further teaches a medical imaging system, comprising a memory and a processor, the memory storing a computer program, and the processor being configured to execute the computer program to implement the method (‘073D, figs. 2 and 3 and pg. 4 lines 20-27: The modules are computers, or other processors with associated hardware, memory, and programming for performing the operations).
As per claim 9, ‘073D teaches all the claim limitations as in the consideration of claim 1 since the units of claim 9 are the apparatus for performing the method of claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 2-5 and 10-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘073D in view of Truitner (US 11,907,841).
As per claim 2 (dependent on claim 1), ‘073D further teaches:
wherein determining, based on the image, whether an isolation pad is present at a predetermined part of the detection object comprises: determining a posture of the detection object (‘073D, figs. 3, 7, and 15 and pg. 9 lines 1-9, pg. 19 lines 1-11, and pg. 20 lines 3-9: Patient posture, including the presence of potential loops, is determined to help determine the presence or absence of pads; any object detection process may be used to detect the pads); and determining, in response to a determination result of the posture of the detection object, whether an isolation pad is present at the predetermined part of the detection object (‘073D, figs. 3, 7, and 15 and pg. 9 lines 1-9, pg. 19 lines 1-11, and pg. 20 lines 3-9: Patient posture, including the presence of potential loops, is determined to help determine the presence or absence of pads),
‘073D does not disclose using at least one of color channel information and depth information of the image in the determining.
However, in the same art of detecting objects in images, Truitner, col. 2 lines 27-32, col. 7 linesd 31-44, co. 9 lines 42-48, col. 10 lines 8-21, and col. 14 lines 4-12, teaches using color information along with any needed resizing of images and comparison to templates for specific object determination.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for ‘073D’s object detection, to include the specific object detection process, as taught by Truitner. The motivation is to enable more accurate specific object detection with specific color and size (Truitner, col. 2 lines 27-32, col. 7 lines 31-44, co. 9 lines 42-48, col. 10 lines 8-21, and col. 14 lines 4-12).
As per claim 3 (dependent on claim 2), ‘073D and Truitner further teaches:
wherein determining, in response to the posture of the detection object being a first posture (‘073D, figs. 3, 7, and 15 and pg. 9 lines 1-9, pg. 19 lines 1-11, and pg. 20 lines 3-9: Patient posture, including the presence of potential loops, is determined to help determine the presence or absence of pads), whether an isolation pad is present at the predetermined part of the detection object using color channel information of the image (Truitner, col. 2 lines 27-32, col. 7 lines 31-44, co. 9 lines 42-48, col. 10 lines 8-21, and col. 14 lines 4-12: the object may be determined in part based on color information); or determining, in response to the posture of the detection object being a second posture(‘073D, figs. 3, 7, and 15 and pg. 9 lines 1-9, pg. 19 lines 1-11, and pg. 20 lines 3-9: Patient posture, including the presence of potential loops, is determined to help determine the presence or absence of pads; different postures may be determined in identifying the presence or absence of pads; in this combination, the object being detected is a pad), whether an isolation pad is present at the predetermined part of the detection object using at least one of the color channel information and depth information of the image (Truitner, col. 2 lines 27-32, col. 7 lines 31-44, co. 9 lines 42-48, col. 10 lines 8-21, and col. 14 lines 4-12: the object may be determined in part based on color information; in this combination, the object being detected is a pad);.
As per claim 4 (dependent on claim 2), ‘073D and Truitner further teaches:
wherein determining whether an isolation pad is present at the predetermined part of the detection object using color channel information of the image comprises: resizing a figure in a predetermined region in the image at least once, comparing the resized figure with a template, and, in response to a comparison result that the resized figure matches the template, determining that an isolation pad is present at the predetermined part of the detection object (Truitner, col. 2 lines 27-32, col. 7 lines 31-44, co. 9 lines 42-48, col. 10 lines 8-21, and col. 14 lines 4-12: The received image may be resized for specific regions for comparison with stored templates to accurately determine the object; in this combination, the object being detected is a pad);.
As per claim 5 (dependent on claim 4), ‘073D and Truitner further teaches:
wherein the template is used to detect whether there is a predetermined pattern in the figure (Truitner, col. 5 liens 1-25: The template matching is used for pattern recognition to determine the specific objects; in this combination, the object being detected is a pad).
As per claim 10, ‘073D teaches all the limitation of claim 9 and further limitations are met by ‘073D and Truitner, as in the consideration of claim 2 above.
As per claim 11, ‘073D and Truitner renders obvious all the limitation of claim 10 and further limitations are met as in the consideration of claim 3 above.
As per claim 12, ‘073D and Truitner renders obvious all the limitation of claim 110 and further limitations are met as in the consideration of claim 3 above.
As per claim 13, ‘073D and Truitner renders obvious all the limitation of claim 12 and further limitations are met as in the consideration of claim 3 above.
Claim(s) 6 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘073D and Truitner in view of Kaftory et al. (US 2008/0260244).
As per claim 6 (dependent on claim 5), ‘073D and Truitner does not disclose:
wherein the predetermined pattern is periodically arranged on a surface of the isolation pad, and at least one of a color, a shape and a texture of the predetermined pattern is different from a background of the surface of the isolation pad.
However, in the same art of identifying objects in images, Kaftory, [0004]-[0005], [0018], and [0020], teaches that obejcts may have colored patterns that are periodically arranged on the surface of the object to aid in identifying the object in images.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for ‘073D and Truitner’s object detection to include the colored patterns, as taught by Kaftory. The motivation is because the predefined color patterns allow for more efficient and fast object identification (Kaftory, [0004]-[0005], [0018], and [0020]).
As per claim 14, ‘073D and Truitner renders obvious all the limitation of claim 13, and further limitations are met, by ‘073D, Truitner, and Kaftory, as in the consideration of claim 6 above.
Claim(s) 7 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘073D and Truitner in view of Cabos et al. (US 2022/0063834).
As per claim 7 (dependent on claim 2), ‘073D and Truitner does not disclose:
wherein determining whether an isolation pad is present at the predetermined part of the detection object using the depth information of the image comprises: calculating depth difference information in a predetermined region in the image, and, in response to the depth difference information being greater than a predetermined threshold, determining that an isolation pad is present at the predetermined part of the detection object.
However, in the same art of object detection in images, Cabos, [0110], teaches object presence detection based on a depth difference exceeding a threshold in an image.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for ‘073D and Truitner’s object detection to used depth difference comparison, as taught by Cabos. The motivation is because ‘073D, pg. 16 lines5-7, teaches the pad detection may be through using an object recognition algorithm, without specifying a type of algorithm. The depth difference determination of Cabos is a known object recognition algorithm and would have provided the predictable result of accurately identifying the presence of an object.
As per claim 15, ‘073D and Truitner renders obvious all the limitation of claim 10, and further limitations are met, by ‘073D, Truitner, and Cabos, as in the consideration of claim 7 above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Additional references cited in the PTO-892 form are related to isolation pad detection or object detections in images.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW W BEE whose telephone number is (571)270-5183. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 - 7:00 M-Th.
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.
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.
/ANDREW W BEE/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2677
Prosecution Insights