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 Objections
Claims 13 – 14, 18 – 19 and 24 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 13 – 14 and 18 – 19 are dependent claims for claim 11. Claim 11 claimed a system. However, claims 13 – 14 and 18 – 19 claimed the method of claim 11.
Claim 24 recites: “wherein the image analysis task with respect to the target image data is transmitted from a gateway device between the image management platform and the image analysis service platform.” There is lack of anteceded basis for “the image management platform and the image analysis service platform.”
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1 – 5, 9 – 14, 19, 23 – 24 and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mathur et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2021/0158939, IDS), hereinafter referred as Mathur.
Regarding claim 11, Mathur discloses a system (Fig. 1 – 3), including a gateway device (Fig. 1 or 3, workflow execution engine 116) between an image management platform (Fig. 1 or 3, algorithm orchestration component 110) and an image analysis service platform ([0106], the third-party system), comprising:
at least one storage device including a set of instructions (Fig. 27, #2706, 2714); and
at least one processor configured to communicate with the at least one storage device (Fig. 27, #2704), wherein when executing the set of instructions, the at least one processor is configured to direct the system to perform operations including:
obtaining a request for analyzing target image data stored in the image management platform (Fig. 4, 402. “receive a request (e.g., an image processing request 106) to process a medical image using at least one medical image inferencing models …”);
in response to the request, generating an image analysis task with respect to the target image data ([0123] describing figure 4 and disclosing that that "task registry data" is part of the selected workflow), the image analysis task including a storage address of the target image data in the image management platform ([0100] discloses that the file location address is also provided in the context of the workflow and the task); and
transmitting the image analysis task to the image analysis service platform to direct the image analysis service platform to acquire the target image data from the storage address and perform image analysis on the target image data ([0106], "In some embodiments in which the algorithm is a third-party algorithm, the workflow execution engine 116 can send the input image to the third-party system with a request to have the third-party system apply the algorithm to the input image and return the results").
Regarding claim 12 (depends on claim 11), Mathur discloses the system wherein the generating an image analysis task with respect to the target image data includes: determining whether one or more features of the target image data satisfy a first condition; and in response to determining that the one or more features of the target image data satisfy the first condition, generating the image analysis task with respect to the target image data ([0104], validating the request).
Regarding claim 13 (depends on claim 11), Mathur discloses the system wherein the generating an image analysis task with respect to the target image data includes: determining whether user permission corresponding to the request satisfies a second condition; and in response to determining that the user permission corresponding to the request satisfies the second condition, generating the image analysis task with respect to the target image data ([0104], validating the request).
Regarding claim 14 (depends on claim 11), Mathur discloses the system wherein the generating an image analysis task with respect to the target image data includes: obtaining a plurality of candidate algorithms; determining a target algorithm from the plurality of candidate algorithms based on the target image data; and generating the image analysis task with respect to the target image data based on the target algorithm ([0148], selecting a target algorithm from a plurality of algorithms).
Regarding claim 19 (depends on claim 11), Mathur discloses the system further comprising: obtaining, from a user terminal, a second request for obtaining an image analysis result of the target image data; and transmitting the second request to the image analysis service platform to direct the image analysis service platform to transmit the image analysis result to the user terminal (Fig. 29 – 31, a client/user terminal can be used for request and receive result).
Regarding claims 1 – 4 and 9, they are corresponding to claims 11 – 14 and 19, respectively, thus, they are interpreted and rejected for the same reason set forth for claims 11 – 14 and 19.
Regarding claim 5 (depends on claim 4), Mathur discloses the method wherein the determining a target algorithm from the plurality of candidate algorithms based on the target image data includes: for each of the plurality of candidate algorithms, determining at least one mandatory requirement and at least one optional requirement with respect to an input of the candidate algorithm; selecting at least one candidate algorithm from the plurality of candidate algorithms, the target image data satisfying the at least one mandatory requirement of each selected candidate algorithm; and determining the target algorithm from the at least one selected candidate algorithm based on the target image data and the at least one optional requirement of each selected candidate algorithm ([0140]: set/adjust the confidence score threshold).
Regarding claim 10 (depends on claim 1), Mathur discloses the method wherein the gateway device is integrated into the image management platform (Fig. 5, workflow management/execution component and algorithm management/orchestration component can be integrated).
Regarding claim 23, it is corresponding to claim 11, thus, it is interpreted and rejected for the same reason set forth for claim 11.
Regarding claim 24 (depends on claim 23), Mathur discloses the method wherein the image analysis task with respect to the target image data is transmitted from a gateway device (Fig. 1 or 3, workflow execution engine 116) between the image management platform and the image analysis service platform.
Regarding claim 26 (depends on claim 23), Mathur discloses the method further comprising: obtaining, from a user terminal or the gateway device, a request for obtaining an image analysis result of the target image data; and transmitting the image analysis result to the user terminal (Fig. 29 – 31, a client/user terminal can be used for request and receive result).
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) 8, 18 and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mathur in view of Knoplioch et al. (WIPO Patent Application Publication 2021/003046, IDS), hereinafter referred as Knoplioch.
Regarding claim 18 (depends on claim 11), Mathur fails to explicitly disclose the system further comprising: obtaining, from the image analysis service platform, an analysis abstract of an image analysis result of the target image data; and storing the analysis abstract into a storage component of the gateway device.
However, in a similar field of endeavor Knoplioch discloses a method for image processing (abstract). In addition, Knoplioch discloses obtaining an analysis abstract of an image analysis result of the target image data; and storing the analysis abstract into a storage component of the gateway device ([0073]: "other outcome from individual model algorithmic processing can be further ... reporting").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Mathur, and obtaining, from the image analysis service platform, an analysis abstract of an image analysis result of the target image data; and storing the analysis abstract into a storage component of the gateway device. The motivation for doing this is to save time for user to read.
Regarding claim 8 and 25, they are corresponding to claim 18, thus, they are interpreted and rejected for the same reason set forth for claim 18.
Claim(s) 6 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mathur in view of Wikipedia (95.208.248.235 ET AL: "Feature vector", Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, 30 May 2015 (2015-05-30), XP055337169, Retrieved from the Internet: URL:https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Feature_vector&oldid=664720595
[retrieved on 2017-01-20], IDS)
Regarding claim 6 (depends on claim 4), Mathur fails to explicitly disclose the method wherein the determining a target algorithm from the plurality of candidate algorithms based on the target image data includes: obtaining a corresponding relationship between the plurality of candidate algorithms and a plurality of reference feature vectors representing a plurality of sets of reference image data; determining a target feature vector representing the target image data; and determining the target algorithm from the plurality of candidate algorithms based on the target feature vector and the corresponding relationship.
However, in a similar field of endeavor Wikipedia discloses feature vector (abstract). In addition, Wikipedia discloses obtaining a corresponding relationship between the plurality of candidate algorithms and a plurality of reference feature vectors representing a plurality of sets of reference image data; determining a target feature vector representing the target image data; and determining the target algorithm from the plurality of candidate algorithms based on the target feature vector and the corresponding relationship (page 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Mathur, and obtaining a corresponding relationship between the plurality of candidate algorithms and a plurality of reference feature vectors representing a plurality of sets of reference image data; determining a target feature vector representing the target image data; and determining the target algorithm from the plurality of candidate algorithms based on the target feature vector and the corresponding relationship. The motivation for doing this is to shrink large images into a short list of numbers so as to save storage space.
Regarding claim 7 (depends on claim 4), Mathur fails to explicitly disclose the metho wherein the determining a target algorithm from the plurality of candidate algorithms based on the target image data includes: obtaining an algorithm determination model, wherein the algorithm determination model is a trained machine learning model; and determining the target algorithm based on the target image data using the algorithm determination model.
However, in a similar field of endeavor Wikipedia discloses feature vector (abstract). In addition, Wikipedia discloses obtaining an algorithm determination model, wherein the algorithm determination model is a trained machine learning model; and determining the target algorithm based on the target image data using the algorithm determination model (page 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Mathur, and obtaining an algorithm determination model, wherein the algorithm determination model is a trained machine learning model; and determining the target algorithm based on the target image data using the algorithm determination model. The motivation for doing this is to maximize processing efficiency and accuracy by dynamically matching the unique physical characteristics of an image to the optimal computational tool.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to QIAN YANG whose telephone number is (571)270-7239. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 8am-6pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Andrew Bee can be reached on 571-270-5183. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/QIAN YANG/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2677
Prosecution Insights