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 Status
Claims 1-14 are pending.
Priority
This application is based upon and claims the benefit of priority from Japanese Patent Application No. 2023-189632, filed on November 6, 2023.
Information Disclosure Statement
The IDS filed 11/06/24 has been considered.
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 limitations are:
"processing circuitry configured to acquire" in claim 1
"processing circuitry configured to calculate" in claim 1
"processing circuitry configured to correct" in claim 1
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they 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 these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid 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 limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 (2-12 by dependency and 13-14 for being substantially parallel) 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.
In claim 1, the limitation “to acquire a same structure from a plurality of medical images captured at different times or by different devices, to calculate feature quantities related to a form of the structure for each of the medical images, and to correct the structure so that a difference in the feature quantities is reduced” is written in a way that renders the scope of the claim unclear. In particular, multiple words are unclear to what they relate to.
First, the term “structure” is unclear, “structure” could mean one of many things in relation to medical images such as shapes, lines, edges, gradients, alongside multiple other possible interpretations. While claim 2 defines that structure is contextualized to shape information, claim 1 lends itself to multiple interpretations for “structure”. For examination purposes, “structure” is interpreted as “shape information”.
Second, “feature quantities” is unclear, “feature quantities” could mean one of many things in relation to medical images such as pixel amount, pixel value, length, width, circumference, gradient magnitude and directions, alongside multiple other possible interpretations. While claim 3 defines that feature quantities is contextualized to length of the structure, claim 1 lends itself to multiple interpretations for “feature quantities”. For examination purposes, “feature quantities” is interpreted as “length of the structure”.
Third, “to correct the structure so that a difference in the feature quantities is reduced” is unclear, “to correct the structure so that a difference in the feature quantities is reduced” could mean one of many things in relation to medical images such as noise correction, position correction, size correction, color/brightness correction, alongside multiple other possible interpretations. While claim 8 may imply there is a correction in relations to a measurement in some way, there is no way to determine from the claims how correction is achieved, whether it is supposed to be warping the measurements so one matches the other or if they are both warped toward each other, or some other intended way, therefore claims 1-14 lends itself to multiple interpretations for “to correct the structure so that a difference in the feature quantities is reduced”. For examination purposes, Fig. 8 seems to illustrate warping locations to an average, so “to correct the structure so that a difference in the feature quantities is reduced’ is interpreted as “warping the shape to match an intended shape”.
Additionally, it is unclear how all the steps relate to each other due to the language being able to be interpreted in multiple ways. Is a similar gradient obtained over multiple images, then is the gradient magnitude and directions calculated, then are they corrected by way of making the gradients in images similar, or is similar shape information obtained from multiple images, the length of the shape information is calculated, and is one shape information warped to the other to correct it? It is unclear with the current state of the language. For examination, the second interpretation of the two examples above is interpreted as the intended scope.
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.
Claims 1-3, 6-8, 11, and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Oosawa (US 20030210813 A1 Hereinafter “Oosawa”).
Regarding claim 1, Oosawa teaches an image information processing apparatus comprising:
processing circuitry ([0078]: “Each of the first and second computer programs in accordance with the present invention may be recorded on the computer readable recording medium and read from the computer readable recording medium. In this manner, the computer program is capable of being installed in the computer and executed by the computer. Alternatively, the computer program may be stored in a server, which is connected to a network, such that the computer program is capable of being down-loaded from the server, and the computer program may be down-loaded from the server to a computer and installed in the computer”) configured to
acquire a same structure from a plurality of medical images captured at different times or by different devices (Fig. 4, [0133]: “Firstly, shapes of the anatomical features of the objects are extracted as the landmarks from the images having been stored in the normal structure DB. FIG. 4A is an explanatory view showing an example of a chest image P1 stored in the normal structure DB, in which chest image a plurality of landmarks have been appended to outer peripheries of lung field regions”. Given the content of the images differs, they must have been taken at different times or by different devices)
to calculate feature quantities related to a form of the structure for each of the medical images (Fig. 4, [0133]: “In each of FIG. 4A, FIG. 4B, and FIG. 4C, a plurality of black points represented by M are the landmarks. The points utilized as the landmarks represent equivalent anatomical feature positions in each image”. These positions act as the quantities), and
to correct the structure so that a difference in the feature quantities is reduced (Fig. 6, [0134]: “Thereafter, in order for each of the images stored in the normal structure DB to be warped to the thus prepared mean shape, a calculation is made to find a shift quantity for shift of each of the landmarks in each image to the mean shape. FIG. 6 is an explanatory view showing how each of landmarks (represented by M in FIG. 6), which have been appended to outer peripheries of lung field regions in a chest image, is warped to the mean shape (represented by Ka in FIG. 6)”. The structure is corrected in each image by warping the locations of the points to the mean locations of the points seen in Fig. 5, this minimizes the difference in feature quantities).
Regarding claim 2, Oosawa teaches the image information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to acquire shape information at anatomically corresponding positions of anatomical structure of a same object included in the medical images, as the structure (Fig. 4, [0133]: “Firstly, shapes of the anatomical features of the objects are extracted as the landmarks from the images having been stored in the normal structure DB. FIG. 4A is an explanatory view showing an example of a chest image P1 stored in the normal structure DB, in which chest image a plurality of landmarks have been appended to outer peripheries of lung field regions”. The shapes of the lungs are extracted as the anatomical structures).
Regarding claim 3, Oosawa teaches the image information processing apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the feature quantity is a length of the anatomical structure ([0136]: “wherein x and y represent the coordinates of each of the landmarks in each image, x' and y' represent the coordinates on the mean shape”. The coordinates of the points that outline the lungs are connected as seen in Fig. 4A-4C. This outline has a length for outlining the lungs (anatomical structure). So the feature quantity (coordinate points) also contain a length of the anatomical structure).
Regarding claim 6, Oosawa teaches the image information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to calculate an evaluation value on a basis of a form of the structure (Fig. 5, [0133]: “A mean shape of the objects is prepared from the shapes of the images having been extracted as the landmarks. FIG. 5 is an explanatory view showing an image Pa, which represents a mean shape of the chests acting as the objects. In cases where the object shapes in the images are extracted as the landmarks, normalization should preferably be performed previously with respect to parallel translation components. For example, in the cases of the medical images of the chests, position matching should preferably be performed with respect to the top ends of the lung fields and the center points with respect to the horizontal direction”. The evaluation value is the mean locations of the landmarks which are made on the basis of the structure), and select a method of correcting the structure on a basis of the calculated evaluation value (Fig. 6, [0134]: “Thereafter, in order for each of the images stored in the normal structure DB to be warped to the thus prepared mean shape, a calculation is made to find a shift quantity for shift of each of the landmarks in each image to the mean shape. FIG. 6 is an explanatory view showing how each of landmarks (represented by M in FIG. 6), which have been appended to outer peripheries of lung field regions in a chest image, is warped to the mean shape (represented by Ka in FIG. 6)”. The structure is corrected on the basis of the evaluation value (mean landmarks) by warping the locations of the points to the mean locations of the points seen in Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 7, Oosawa teaches the image information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to set correction locations from the same structure on (Fig. 4: The correct locations from the same structure are the edges of the lungs), and calculate the feature quantities for the set correction locations (Fig. 4: The feature quantities are the landmark locations on the edges of the lungs).
Regarding claim 8, Oosawa teaches the image information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to correct the structure by using a length, (Fig. 6, [0136]: “wherein x and y represent the coordinates of each of the landmarks in each image, x' and y' represent the coordinates on the mean shape, to which each of the landmarks in each image is warped, .DELTA.x and .DELTA.y represent the shift quantity to the mean shape, n represents the degree, and a.sub.ij and b.sub.ij represent the coefficients”. The shift quantity is the distance between the landmark and the mean shape, the distance acts as a length for correction criterion. The “or” language means the list of options are alternatives hence only one needs to be taught for a prima facia case of rejection).
Regarding claim 11, Oosawa teaches the image information processing apparatus according to claim 6, wherein the evaluation value is a likelihood of the structure (Fig. 5, [0133]: “A mean shape of the objects is prepared from the shapes of the images having been extracted as the landmarks. FIG. 5 is an explanatory view showing an image Pa, which represents a mean shape of the chests acting as the objects. In cases where the object shapes in the images are extracted as the landmarks, normalization should preferably be performed previously with respect to parallel translation components. For example, in the cases of the medical images of the chests, position matching should preferably be performed with respect to the top ends of the lung fields and the center points with respect to the horizontal direction”. By generating a mean version of the images, the inventors are trying to come up with a consistent shape of the lungs, that consistent shape is indicative of the likelihood of that structure. So the mean acts as an evaluation value that is a likelihood of the structure).
Regarding claim 13, the content of claim 13 is similar to the content of claim 1, therefore it is rejected for the same reasons of anticipation as claim 1.
Regarding claim 14, the content of claim 14 is similar to the content of claim 1, with the additional teachings of a non-transitory computer readable medium. Oosawa also discloses this information ([0078]: “Each of the first and second computer programs in accordance with the present invention may be recorded on the computer readable recording medium and read from the computer readable recording medium. In this manner, the computer program is capable of being installed in the computer and executed by the computer. Alternatively, the computer program may be stored in a server, which is connected to a network, such that the computer program is capable of being down-loaded from the server, and the computer program may be down-loaded from the server to a computer and installed in the computer”). Therefore, claim 14 is rejected for the same reasons of anticipation as claim 1, along with the additional teachings 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 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oosawa (US 20030210813 A1 Hereinafter “Oosawa”) in view of KAWAI (US 20210049777 A1 Hereinafter “KAWAI”).
Regarding claim 9, Oosawa teaches the image information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to select a method of correcting the structure (Fig. 6, [0134]: “Thereafter, in order for each of the images stored in the normal structure DB to be warped to the thus prepared mean shape, a calculation is made to find a shift quantity for shift of each of the landmarks in each image to the mean shape. FIG. 6 is an explanatory view showing how each of landmarks (represented by M in FIG. 6), which have been appended to outer peripheries of lung field regions in a chest image, is warped to the mean shape (represented by Ka in FIG. 6)”. The structure is corrected in each image by warping the locations of the points to the mean locations of the points seen in Fig. 5, this minimizes the difference in feature quantities).
Oosawa does not expressly disclose determining the reliability of the extraction before performing further operations.
However, KAWAI teaches suppressing features when they are not reliably extracted keeping them from further processing ([0094]: “In other words, setting a degree of reliability suppresses that a feature to be extracted from a foreground region that is not correctly extracted is greatly reflected in a feature to be determined”).
At the time the invention was made, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Oosawa’s image correction method to include KAWAI’s use of reliability to suppress poorly extracted features because such a modification is the result of applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results. More specifically, KAWAI’s use of reliability to suppress poorly extracted permits reducing inaccuracy of features extracted when the features are not correctly extracted ([0132]: “it is possible to reduce inaccuracy of a feature to be derived when a foreground region is not correctly extracted”). This known benefit in KAWAI is applicable to Oosawa’s image correction method as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to feature extraction from images. Therefore, it would have been recognized that modifying Oosawa’s image correction method to include KAWAI’s use of reliability to suppress poorly extracted features would have yielded predictable results because (i) the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate KAWAI’s use of reliability to suppress poorly extracted features in feature extraction from images and (ii) the benefits of such a combination would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oosawa (US 20030210813 A1 Hereinafter “Oosawa”) in view of Uchida (US 20210183019 A1 Hereinafter “Uchida”).
Regarding claim 10, Oosawa teaches the image information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry causes a display unit to display the medical image before correction is performed and a medical image after correction is performed([0092]: “With each of the first and second image output apparatuses in accordance with the present invention, wherein the output means is the display means for displaying the images, the inputted medical image and the normal structure image corresponding to the inputted medical image are capable of being displayed on the display screen and compared with each other through visual confirmation”. The images warped to the mean shape are part of the images displayed that are from the database “At this stage, the mean shape of the images stored in the normal structure DB, each of the images having been warped to the mean shape, and the mean texture are obtained”).
Oosawa does not expressly disclose displaying these images before and after correction in a superimposed manner.
However, Uchida teaches displaying images before and after correction in a superimposed manner ([0126]: “Note that, although in the aforementioned display method the images before and after image quality improving processing are switched and displayed, a similar effect can be obtained by displaying these images in a juxtaposed or superimposed manner”).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Oosawa’s display method to include Uchida’s ability to display altered images before and after an alteration because such a modification is taught, suggested, or motivated by the art. More specifically, the motivation to modify Oosawa to include Uchida is expressly provided by Uchida, stating that this way the operator can confirm a change took place ([0125]: “Therefore, the operator can easily view and compare the OCTA images before and after the image quality improving processing, and can easily confirm a change between the OCTA images that was caused by the image quality improving processing”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Oosawa’s display method to include Uchida’s ability to display altered images before and after an alteration with the motivation of improving user quality control. The person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the benefit of improved user quality control.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-5 and 12 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Funabasama et al. (US 10593022 B2) teaches aligning medical images to the reference images.
Navon et al. (US 20240338311 A1) teaches image reconstruction using a GAN where high confidence pixels are maintained a low confidence pixels are changed
Sunami et al. (US 9563968 B2) teaches selection of features between time phases
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEFANO A DARDANO whose telephone number is (703)756-4543. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 11:00 - 7:00.
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, Greg Morse can be reached at (571) 272-3838. 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.
/STEFANO ANTHONY DARDANO/ Examiner, Art Unit 2663
/GREGORY A MORSE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2698
Prosecution Insights