DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 9-10 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected method, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 11/05/2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 1-8, the use of the limitation “on the basis of” renders the claims indefinite. It is not clear what, if any, relationship exists between the associated elements; e.g. mathematical, causal, incidental, etc.
Regarding claims 3-4, the use of the limitation “based on” renders the claims indefinite. It is not clear what, if any, relationship exists between the associated elements; e.g. mathematical, causal, incidental, etc.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the unit regions" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the three-dimensional risk information map" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peterson et al. (US 2022/0130040 A1) in view of Washko, JR. et al. (US 2021/0233241 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Peterson et al. (‘040) teach a medical information processing device comprising processing circuitry configured to: acquire a CT image of a chest of a subject (“computed tomography” see [0051]); acquire an esophageal pressure and an airway pressure of the subject (“pressure measurement” see [0075]-[0076]); and generate a risk information map in a lung field of the subject on a basis of the CT image, the esophageal pressure, and the airway pressure (“disease probability mapping” see [0062]); but fail to explicitly teach estimate risk information in the lung field and display of the information. However, Washko, JR. et al. (‘241) from the same field of endeavor do teach a device to estimate risk information in the lung field of the subject on a basis of the risk information map (“map indicates a predicted risk lung cancer” see [0297]); and display the risk information map and the risk information on a display (“color-coded image of a lung of the patient” see [0304]). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the invention of Peterson et al. with the features of Washko, JR. et al. for the benefit of predicting future risk of lung disease.
Regarding claim 2, Peterson et al. (‘040) in view of Washko, JR. et al. (‘241) teach the medical information processing device according to claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to superimpose the risk information map on the CT image and display the CT image including the risk information map on the display (see Washko, JR. et al. [0304]).
Regarding claim 3, Peterson et al. (‘040) in view of Washko, JR. et al. (‘241) teach the medical information processing device according to claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to estimate the risk information using a risk estimation model trained to output the risk information when information based on the risk information map is input (see Washko, JR. et al. [0304]).
Regarding claim 4, Peterson et al. (‘040) in view of Washko, JR. et al. (‘241) teach the medical information processing device according to claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to estimate the risk information using a risk estimation model trained to output information indicating the risk information when information based on the risk information map and information on the subject are input (see Washko, JR. et al. [0304]).
Regarding claim 5, Peterson et al. (‘040) in view of Washko, JR. et al. (‘241) teach the medical information processing device according to claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to calculate a transpulmonary pressure for each unit region of the lung field in the CT image on a basis of CT values in the CT image, the esophageal pressure, and the airway pressure, and generate the risk information map indicating the transpulmonary pressure for each unit region (see Peterson et al. [0050]-[0052]).
Regarding claim 6, Peterson et al. (‘040) in view of Washko, JR. et al. (‘241) teach the medical information processing device according to claim 5, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to calculate the transpulmonary pressure for each unit region on a basis of a relative positional relationship between a measurement position of the esophageal pressure in the CT image and the unit region for which the transpulmonary pressure is to be calculated (see Peterson et al. [0050]-[0052]).
Regarding claim 7, Peterson et al. (‘040) in view of Washko, JR. et al. (‘241) teach the medical information processing device of claim 5, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to calculate a proportion of the unit regions having transpulmonary pressures equal to or greater than a threshold value on a basis of the calculated transpulmonary pressure for each unit region, and display the proportion of the unit regions having transpulmonary pressures equal to or greater than the threshold value on the display (see Peterson et al. [0054]-[0058]).
Regarding claim 8, Peterson et al. (‘040) in view of Washko, JR. et al. (‘241) teach the medical information processing device of claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to generate the three-dimensional risk information map in a body axis direction of the subject on a basis of the CT images including a plurality of tomographic images of the chest captured in the body axis direction of the subject (see Washko, JR. et al. [0304]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARK REMALY whose telephone number is (571)270-1491. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:00 - 6:00.
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, Christopher Koharski can be reached at (571) 272-7230. 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.
/MARK D REMALY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3797