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 JP2023-185034 dated 10/27/2023. 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 10/24/2024 has been considered and placed in the application file.
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 is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis 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.
(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.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 8, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by US Patent Publication 2017 0069084 A1, (Kubo et al.).
Claim 1
Regarding Claim 1, Kubo et al. disclose an information processing apparatus comprising a processor, wherein the processor is configured to: acquire a comment on findings including a plurality of pieces of element information about at least one region of interest; ("acquisition unit 42 acquires an interpretation report (report information) … the interpretation report is the interpretation report corresponding to the medical image acquired by the medical image acquisition unit … the report information is information including a region of interest in a medical image of an object (for example, patient) and comment information associated with the region of interest," par. 38) make a first determination as to whether the comment on findings is described for a plurality of regions of interest or for one region of interest based on the element information; ("one region on the medical image corresponding to one keyword extracted in step S203 is acquired in step S204 and used as a display position determination condition in step S205. However, a plurality of regions on the medical image may be acquired in correspondence with one keyword and used as display position determination conditions. This will be determined with reference to FIGS. 14 and 15. FIG. 14 is a view showing an example of table information representing the relationship between a preset keyword extracted from an interpretation text in step S203 and a region acquired in correspondence with the keyword," par. 98-99) and determine a method for presenting the comment on findings based on a result of the first determination ("the display position determination unit 45 may determine, for the plurality of interpretation texts, the display positions of character string display regions that do not overlap each other. This enables simultaneous display of the plurality of regions of interest and the corresponding interpretation texts (comment information) on one medical image without overlap," par. 103).
Claim 2
Regarding Claim 2, Kubo et al. disclose the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to, in a case of presenting at least one of a plurality of the comments on findings, ("according to a modification of the interpretation text (comment information), the display position determination unit 45 may change the display position of the character string display region of the interpretation text, and the display processing unit 46 may display, on the display unit 36, the medical image with the modified interpretation text being overlaid at the changed display position," par. 61 wherein the presentation priority can be lowered by lowering the position of the comment on the image) lower a presentation priority of the comment on findings that is determined to be described for the plurality of regions of interest ("the display position of the character string display region can be any position on the medical image that meets the above-described display position determination conditions," par. 56).
Claim 3
[AltContent: textbox (Figure 14 shows the group and associated regions relationships.)]
PNG
media_image1.png
320
412
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 3, Kubo et al. disclose the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to: make a second determination as to whether the comment on findings is described for a plurality of types of the regions of interest or for one type of the plurality of regions of interest, the comment on findings being determined to be described for the plurality of regions of interest in the first determination; ("In step S203, the keyword extraction unit 43 extracts a keyword set in advance from the interpretation text read out in step S202 by keyword matching. In this embodiment, the keyword is a character string representing anatomical information such as an organ name displayed in the medical image … The organ names described here are merely examples, as a matter of course, and the present invention is not limited to this. The keyword is not limited to an organ name and may be any character string if it can specify a position in a medical image," par. 51) and determine the method for presenting the comment on findings based on a result of the second determination ("the display position of the character string display region is determined in consideration of another region that is anatomically or medically closely related to the region corresponding to the keyword in the interpretation text as well," par. 102).
Claim 4
Regarding Claim 4, Kubo et al. disclose the information processing apparatus according to claim 3, wherein the processor is configured to, in a case of presenting at least one of a plurality of the comments on findings, lower a presentation priority of the comment on findings ("according to a modification of the interpretation text (comment information), the display position determination unit 45 may change the display position of the character string display region of the interpretation text, and the display processing unit 46 may display, on the display unit 36, the medical image with the modified interpretation text being overlaid at the changed display position," par. 61 wherein the presentation priority can be lowered by lowering the position of the comment on the image) that is determined to be described for the plurality of types of the plurality of regions of interest ("the display position of the character string display region can be any position on the medical image that meets the above-described display position determination conditions," par. 56).
Claim 8
Regarding Claim 8, Kubo et al. disclose the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein: the comment on findings consists of a plurality of partial sentences, ("A part or the whole of the acquired interpretation report is output to the keyword extraction unit," par. 39) and the processor is configured to: make the first determination for each of the partial sentences; ("The display position determination unit 45 determines a display position to display a character string in the interpretation report acquired by the interpretation report acquisition unit 42 on the medical image acquired by the medical image acquisition unit 41. The character string in the interpretation report here indicates a part or the whole of a text described in the interpretation report," par. 42) and determine a presentation method in a case in which the comment on findings is divided into the partial sentences and presented based on the result of the first determination ("the display position determination unit 45 determines a display position to overlay-display, on the medical image read out in step S201, a part or the whole of the character string that constructs the interpretation text read out in step S202. In this embodiment, the display region is determined so as not to make the display region of the interpretation text overlap the anatomical region," par. 53).
Claim 17
Regarding Claim 17, Kubo et al. disclose an information processing method executed by a computer, the method comprising: ("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," par. 112) acquiring a comment on findings including a plurality of pieces of element information about at least one region of interest; ("acquisition unit 42 acquires an interpretation report (report information) … the interpretation report is the interpretation report corresponding to the medical image acquired by the medical image acquisition unit … the report information is information including a region of interest in a medical image of an object (for example, patient) and comment information associated with the region of interest," par. 38) making a first determination as to whether the comment on findings is described for a plurality of regions of interest or for one region of interest based on the element information; ("one region on the medical image corresponding to one keyword extracted in step S203 is acquired in step S204 and used as a display position determination condition in step S205. However, a plurality of regions on the medical image may be acquired in correspondence with one keyword and used as display position determination conditions. This will be determined with reference to FIGS. 14 and 15. FIG. 14 is a view showing an example of table information representing the relationship between a preset keyword extracted from an interpretation text in step S203 and a region acquired in correspondence with the keyword," par. 98-99) and determining a method for presenting the comment on findings based on a result of the first determination ("the display position determination unit 45 may determine, for the plurality of interpretation texts, the display positions of character string display regions that do not overlap each other. This enables simultaneous display of the plurality of regions of interest and the corresponding interpretation texts (comment information) on one medical image without overlap," par. 103).
Claim 18
Regarding Claim 18, Kubo et al. disclose a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing an information processing program for causing a computer to execute a process comprising: ("each unit may be implemented as software (computer program) to implement the function," par. 44) acquiring a comment on findings including a plurality of pieces of element information about at least one region of interest; ("acquisition unit 42 acquires an interpretation report (report information) … the interpretation report is the interpretation report corresponding to the medical image acquired by the medical image acquisition unit … the report information is information including a region of interest in a medical image of an object (for example, patient) and comment information associated with the region of interest," par. 38) making a first determination as to whether the comment on findings is described for a plurality of regions of interest or for one region of interest based on the element information; ("one region on the medical image corresponding to one keyword extracted in step S203 is acquired in step S204 and used as a display position determination condition in step S205. However, a plurality of regions on the medical image may be acquired in correspondence with one keyword and used as display position determination conditions. This will be determined with reference to FIGS. 14 and 15. FIG. 14 is a view showing an example of table information representing the relationship between a preset keyword extracted from an interpretation text in step S203 and a region acquired in correspondence with the keyword," par. 98-99) and determining a method for presenting the comment on findings based on a result of the first determination ("the display position determination unit 45 may determine, for the plurality of interpretation texts, the display positions of character string display regions that do not overlap each other. This enables simultaneous display of the plurality of regions of interest and the corresponding interpretation texts (comment information) on one medical image without overlap," par. 103).
1st Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over US Patent Publication 2017 0069084 A1, (Kubo et al.) in view of US Patent Publication 2024 0029252 A1, (Ichinose et al.) and US Patent Publication 2021 0383905 A1, (Kikuchi 2021).
Claim 5
Regarding claim 5, Kubo et al. teach the information processing apparatus according to claim 3, wherein the processor is configured to, in a case of presenting at least one of a plurality of the comments on findings, increase a presentation priority of the comment on findings described for the regions of interest ("according to a modification of the interpretation text (comment information), the display position determination unit 45 may change the display position of the character string display region of the interpretation text, and the display processing unit 46 may display, on the display unit 36, the medical image with the modified interpretation text being overlaid at the changed display position," par. 61 wherein the presentation priority can be increased by raising the position of the comment on the image) for which a new comment on findings is to be created ("the display position of the character string display region can be any position on the medical image that meets the above-described display position determination conditions," par. 56).
Kubo et al. do not explicitly teach all of regions of interest of which a number and a type match a number and a type of new regions of interest.
However, Ichinose et al. teach regions of interest of which a number match a number of new regions of interest ("the processor may be configured to, in a case where the number of regions of interest having the same attribute as the attribute of the selected region of interest is equal to or greater than a threshold value, perform control to display the information regarding the region of interest having the attribute different from the attribute of the selected region of interest," par. 9).
Additionally, Kikuchi 2021 teach regions of interest of which a type match a type of new regions of interest ("a doctor may empirically define in advance the findings to be selected in association with the diagnostic name, and the finding selection unit 302 may select the findings that match the definition according to the diagnostic inference result of the case to be supported," par. 65).
Therefore, taking the teachings of Kubo et al., Ichinose et al., and Kikuchi 2021 as a whole, 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 the information processing methods as taught by Kubo et al. to use the region of interest matching methods as taught by both Ichinose et al. and Kikuchi 2021. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been that, “the finding selection unit 302 can statistically analyze findings specific to diagnostic names from past cases and select findings specific to diagnostic inference results (diagnostic names) of cases to be supported” as noted by the Kikuchi 2021 disclosure in paragraph [0065], which also motivates combination because the combination would predictably have a higher accuracy as there is a reasonable expectation that the combined system would more accurately identify and support relevant medical findings by filtering out noise from past case data; and/or because doing so merely combines prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
2nd Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 6, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over US Patent Publication 2017 0069084 A1, (Kubo et al.) in view of US Patent Publication 2010 0189366 A1, (Iizuka et al.).
Claim 6
Regarding claim 6, Kubo et al. teach the information processing apparatus according to claim 1 as noted above.
Kubo et al. do not explicitly teach all of wherein the processor is configured to make the first determination based on the number of pieces of element information indicating types of the regions of interest included in the comment on findings.
However, Iizuka et al. teach wherein the processor is configured to make the first determination based on the number of pieces of element information indicating types of the regions of interest included in the comment on findings ("In step S108, the finding selection/alignment unit 104 compares the variable i.sub.m with a predetermined threshold T.sub.m. If i.sub.m is larger than T.sub.m, the process advances to step S109. In contrast to this, if i.sub.m is equal to or less than T.sub.m, the process advances to step S110. In this case, the threshold T.sub.m is a value that limits the maximum number (the maximum value of m) of finding sentences," par. 132).
Therefore, taking the teachings of Kubo et al. and Iizuka et al. as a whole, 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 the information processing methods as taught by Kubo et al. to use description rewriting techniques as taught by Iizuka et al. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been that, “Furthermore, it is possible to display a plurality of candidate finding sentences upon arranging them in an order corresponding to the similarities (difference degrees) calculated by the image feature information comparing unit 102 … This makes it possible to automatically display the finding candidate sentences B1 to Bm on the interpretation report creation software in the interpretation terminal 60. This can greatly improve the efficiency of the entry of findings by the interpretation doctor.” as noted by the Iizuka et al. disclosure in paragraph [0160], which also motivates combination because the combination would predictably have a higher efficiency as there is a reasonable expectation that doing so would yield the predictable result of streamlining report creation and reducing the time required for a doctor to manually input findings; and/or because doing so merely combines prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Claim 10
Regarding claim 10, Kubo et al. teach the information processing apparatus according to claim 1 as noted above, wherein the processor is configured to: acquire new element information about one new region of interest for which a new comment on findings is to be created ("a new medical image with the interpretation text arranged at the display position of the character string display region is generated. The new medical image is displayed on the display unit 36 as a medical image including the interpretation text," par. 106).
Kubo et al. do not explicitly teach all of rewrite the comment on findings that is determined to be described for the one region of interest in the first determination in accordance with the new element information and present the rewritten comment on findings.
However, Iizuka et al. teach rewrite the comment on findings that is determined to be described for the one region of interest in the first determination in accordance with the new element information and present the rewritten comment on findings ("the finding revision unit 106 changes the description of each tagged feature item based on the contents of each feature item of the image feature information of the target area. In this manner, a plurality of finding candidate sentences are created and displayed on the display device," par. 159).
Kubo et al. and Iizuka et al. are combined as per claim 6.
Claim 11
Regarding claim 11, Kubo et al. teach the information processing apparatus according to claim 1 as noted above, wherein the processor is configured to: acquire a plurality of pieces of new element information about each of a plurality of new regions of interest for which a new comment on findings is to be created ("a new medical image with the interpretation text arranged at the display position of the character string display region is generated. The new medical image is displayed on the display unit 36 as a medical image including the interpretation text," par. 106).
Kubo et al. do not explicitly teach all of rewrite the comment on findings that is determined to be described for the one region of interest in the first determination in accordance with the plurality of pieces of new element information and present the rewritten comment on findings.
However, Iizuka et al. teach rewrite the comment on findings that is determined to be described for the one region of interest in the first determination in accordance with the plurality of pieces of new element information and present the rewritten comment on findings ("the finding revision unit 106 changes the description of each tagged feature item based on the contents of each feature item of the image feature information of the target area. In this manner, a plurality of finding candidate sentences are created and displayed on the display device," par. 159).
Kubo et al. and Iizuka et al. are combined as per claim 6.
Claim 13
Regarding claim 13, Kubo et al. and Iizuka et al. teach the information processing apparatus according to claim 10 as noted above.
Kubo et al. do not explicitly teach all of wherein the new element information used for rewriting indicates at least one of a position, a measurement value, or the number of the new region of interest.
However, Iizuka et al. teach wherein the new element information used for rewriting indicates at least one of a position, a measurement value, or the number of the new region of interest ("The finding selection/alignment unit 104, the tagged character string creation unit 103, and the finding revision unit 106 then create a finding sentence by changing the tagged description included in the acquired tagged finding sentence based on the contents of the corresponding feature item of the image feature information of the target area," par. 177).
Kubo et al. and Iizuka et al. are combined as per claim 6.
Claim 14
Regarding claim 14, Kubo et al. and Iizuka et al. teach the information processing apparatus according to claim 10 as noted above, wherein the processor is configured to receive an input of the new element information by a user ("The interpretation report acquisition unit 42 acquires an interpretation report (report information) from the database 22 via the communication IF 31 and the LAN 21 in accordance with a user operation input," par. 38).
Kubo et al. and Iizuka et al. are combined as per claim 6.
Claim 15
Regarding claim 15, Kubo et al. and Iizuka et al. teach the information processing apparatus according to claim 10 as noted above, wherein the processor is configured to: acquire an image including at least one new region of interest for which a new comment on findings is to be created.
Kubo et al. do not explicitly teach all of generate the new element information based on the image.
However, Iizuka et al. teach generate the new element information based on the image ("The image feature information extraction unit 101 then creates the data set FA constituted by the image feature information F0.sub.1.about.x and the finding sentence A0, and registers the data set FA as new case data in the case database," par. 163).
Kubo et al. and Iizuka et al. are combined as per claim 6.
Claim 16
Regarding claim 16, Kubo et al. teach the information processing apparatus according to claim 1 as noted above.
Kubo et al. do not explicitly teach all of wherein the element information includes at least one of a property, a position, a measurement value, a number, and a diagnosis of a region of interest, or a phrase expressing a change in the region of interest.
However, Iizuka et al. teach wherein the element information includes at least one of a property, a position, a measurement value, a number, and a diagnosis of a region of interest, or a phrase expressing a change in the region of interest ("The finding selection/alignment unit 104, the tagged character string creation unit 103, and the finding revision unit 106 then create a finding sentence by changing the tagged description included in the acquired tagged finding sentence based on the contents of the corresponding feature item of the image feature information of the target area," par. 177).
Kubo et al. and Iizuka et al. are combined as per claim 6.
3rd Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over US Patent Publication 2017 0069084 A1, (Kubo et al.) in view of US Patent Publication 2017 0301092 A1, (Kikuchi 2017).
Claim 7
Regarding claim 7, Kubo et al. teach the information processing apparatus according to claim 1 as noted above, wherein the processor is configured to, in a case in which the element information is divided into groups for each region of interest ("the region acquisition unit 44 extracts an anatomical region corresponding to the keyword extracted in step S203 from the medical image acquired in step S201, and acquires the region as a region related to the region of interest," par. 52).
Kubo et al. do not explicitly teach all of make the first determination based on the number of groups.
However, Kikuchi 2017 teach make the first determination based on the number of groups ("If findings information is included in a group (YES in step S2901), the editing unit 413 causes the process to proceed to step S2902. In step S2902, the editing unit 413 determines whether or not there are a plurality of findings information items that are divide targets. If there are a plurality of findings information items (YES in step S2902), the editing unit 413 causes the process to proceed to step S2904," par. 149).
Therefore, taking the teachings of Kubo et al. and Kikuchi 2017 as a whole, 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 information processing methods as taught by Kubo et al. to use group determination methods as taught by Kikuchi 2017. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been that, “By using the CADe detection results in the above manner, the terminal apparatus 100 according to the second embodiment does not need to associate a ROI and findings, thereby reducing a load for association. In addition, not only if findings information is divided, but also if findings information items are combined, in response, the terminal apparatus 100 can automatically update association between a representative image and findings information” as noted by the Kikuchi 2017 disclosure in paragraph [0151], which also motivates combination because the combination would predictably have a higher productivity as there is a reasonable expectation that redundant manual assignments for each finding would be prevented; and/or because doing so merely combines prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
4th Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over US Patent Publication 2017 0069084 A1, (Kubo et al.) in view of US Patent Publication 2017 0091949 A1, (Akasaka et al.).
Claim 9
Regarding claim 9, Kubo et al. teach the information processing apparatus according to claim 8 as noted above, wherein the processor is configured to: determine that the partial sentence including the element information ("A part or the whole of the acquired interpretation report is output to the keyword extraction unit," par. 39) about the non-attention region of interest is described for the plurality of regions of interest (based on the keyword acquired by the keyword extraction unit 43, thereby acquiring an anatomical region in the medical image. The region acquisition unit 44 outputs the acquired anatomical region," par. 41).
Kubo et al. do not explicitly teach all of wherein the processor is configured to: classify the element information included in the partial sentences into whether the element information is about an attention region of interest that is the region of interest being attended, whether the element information is about a non-attention region of interest that is the region of interest other than the attention region of interest, or whether the element information is common to the attention region of interest and the non-attention region of interest.
However, Akasaka et al. teach wherein the processor is configured to: classify the element information included in the partial sentences into whether the element information is about an attention region of interest that is the region of interest being attended, ("the control unit 37 acquires a plurality of regions of interest in a medical image of an object to be examined (region acquisition), and designates regions to be included in the same group out of the plurality of regions of interest," par. 44) whether the element information is about a non-attention region of interest that is the region of interest other than the attention region of interest, or whether the element information is common to the attention region of interest and the non-attention region of interest ("In step S105, processing of acquiring individual findings information for each region of interest or findings information common to the regions of interest included in the same group (individual findings acquisition or common findings acquisition) and causing the display unit 36 to display the information is performed, par. 54).
Therefore, taking the teachings of Kubo et al. and Akasaka et al. as a whole, 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 information processing methods as taught by Kubo et al. to use group classification techniques as taught by Akasaka et al. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been that, “The identification information of a group is stored in the storage unit 34 in association with the identification information of each region of interest, thereby creating a group. In response to addition of a new region of interest to the group, findings information common to the regions of interest included in the group is associated with the identification information of the new region of interest. This makes it possible to manage/use the pieces of information while maintaining the correspondence between a region of interest of a medical image, a group to which the region of interest belongs, and a findings information added to each region of interest or group” as noted by the Akasaka et al. disclosure in paragraph [0070], which also motivates combination because the combination would predictably have a greater ease of use as there is a reasonable expectation that that the group classification techniques would successfully associate common findings information with the newly added regions of interest, thereby standardizing data management and analysis; and/or because doing so merely combines prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
5th Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over US Patent Publication 2017 0069084 A1, (Kubo et al.) in view of US Patent Publication 2010 0189366 A1, (Iizuka et al.), US Patent Publication 2024 0029252 A1, (Ichinose et al.), and US Patent Publication 2021 0383905 A1, (Kikuchi 2021).
Claim 12
Regarding claim 12, Kubo et al. teach the information processing apparatus according to claim 1 as noted above,
wherein the processor is configured to: acquire a plurality of pieces of new element information about each of a plurality of new regions of interest for which a new comment on findings is to be created; ("a new medical image with the interpretation text arranged at the display position of the character string display region is generated. The new medical image is displayed on the display unit 36 as a medical image including the interpretation text," par. 106) and among the comments on findings that are determined to be described for the plurality of regions of interest in the first determination ("The display position determination unit 45 determines a display position to display a character string in the interpretation report acquired by the interpretation report acquisition unit 42 on the medical image acquired by the medical image acquisition unit 41. The character string in the interpretation report here indicates a part or the whole of a text described in the interpretation report," par. 42).
Kubo et al. do not explicitly teach all of rewrite the comment on findings described for the regions of interest of which a number and a type match a number and a type of the plurality of new regions of interest, in accordance with the plurality of pieces of new element information and present the rewritten comment on findings.
However, Iizuka et al. teach rewrite the comment on findings described for the regions of interest in accordance with the plurality of pieces of new element information and present the rewritten comment on findings.
Therefore, taking the teachings of Kubo et al. and Iizuka et al. as a whole, 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 the information processing methods as taught by Kubo et al. to use description rewriting techniques as taught by Iizuka et al. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been that, “Furthermore, it is possible to display a plurality of candidate finding sentences upon arranging them in an order corresponding to the similarities (difference degrees) calculated by the image feature information comparing unit 102 … This makes it possible to automatically display the finding candidate sentences B1 to Bm on the interpretation report creation software in the interpretation terminal 60. This can greatly improve the efficiency of the entry of findings by the interpretation doctor.” as noted by the Iizuka et al. disclosure in paragraph [0160], which also motivates combination because the combination would predictably have a higher efficiency as there is a reasonable expectation that doing so would yield the predictable result of streamlining report creation and reducing the time required for a doctor to manually input findings; and/or because doing so merely combines prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
However, Ichinose et al. teach regions of interest of which a number match a number of new regions of interest ("the processor may be configured to, in a case where the number of regions of interest having the same attribute as the attribute of the selected region of interest is equal to or greater than a threshold value, perform control to display the information regarding the region of interest having the attribute different from the attribute of the selected region of interest," par. 9).
Additionally, Kikuchi 2021 teach regions of interest of which a type match a type of new regions of interest ("a doctor may empirically define in advance the findings to be selected in association with the diagnostic name, and the finding selection unit 302 may select the findings that match the definition according to the diagnostic inference result of the case to be supported," par. 65).
Therefore, taking the teachings of Kubo et al., Ichinose et al., and Kikuchi 2021 as a whole, 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 the information processing methods as taught by Kubo et al. to use the region of interest matching methods as taught by both Ichinose et al. and Kikuchi 2021. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been that, “the finding selection unit 302 can statistically analyze findings specific to diagnostic names from past cases and select findings specific to diagnostic inference results (diagnostic names) of cases to be supported” as noted by the Kikuchi 2021 disclosure in paragraph [0065], which also motivates combination because the combination would predictably have a higher accuracy as there is a reasonable expectation that the combined system would more accurately identify and support relevant medical findings by filtering out noise from past case data; and/or because doing so merely combines prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Reference Cited
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
US Patent Publication 2017 0300664 A1 to Matsuki discloses generating medical reports and dynamically updating displayed images to clearly distinguish different groups of target regions.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KARSTEN F LANTZ whose telephone number is (571) 272-4564. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-4:00.
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, Ms. 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.
/Karsten F. Lantz/Examiner, Art Unit 2664
Date: 7/21/2026
/JENNIFER MEHMOOD/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2664
Prosecution Insights