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 .
The Priority Documents filed 26 November 2025 have been received and considered.
Claims 1 – 18 are pending.
Claims 1 – 18, all of the claims pending in this application, have been rejected.
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 – 18 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.
Claim 1 has the following claim language “display the discrimination results on the monitor at an update interval exceeding an update interval of the plurality of endoscopic images displayed on the monitor”. It is unclear as to how the discrimination result, which distinguishes between different clinical classes, is displayed on a monitor at a faster rate than the correlating endoscopic image. Therefore, claim 1 has been rejected.
Examiner recommends re-writing the claim language so as to clearly and concisely depict that the image display rate is faster than the rate of updating the discrimination result.
Claims 2 – 16 are also rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 1.
Claims 17 and 18, the other independent claims pending in this application, recite similar claim language to claim 1 and are also rejected.
Claim 10 has the following claim language “an update interval of displaying the detection results on the monitor is different from the update interval of displaying the discrimination results on the monitor in a case of displaying the detection results on the monitor.”. It is unclear what this means and it is unclear as to what the range is for the update interval.
Claims 13 and 16 have the same language and are also rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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.
Claims 1, 3 – 5, 10, and 17 – 18 (As Best Understood) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US Publication No. 2019/0099060 A1 to YAGUCHI.
Claim 1
Regarding claim 1, an independent method claim, YAGUCHI teaches a medical image processing apparatus comprising one or more processors, the one or more processors being configured to: acquire a plurality of endoscopic images captured by an endoscope in time series ("The image acquiring unit 21 sequentially receives, from outside, image signals including subject images, in temporal sequence; or acquires, in temporal sequence, images that have been stored in the storage unit 28…Examples of the images include:…subject images having been acquired (captured) in temporal sequence by an endoscope", Paragraph [0029]);
sequentially display the plurality of endoscopic images on a monitor ("By processing an image that has been acquired, the image processing apparatus 2 generates an image signal for display, which is displayed by the display device 3. The display device 3 receives the image signal generated by the image processing apparatus 2 via a video cable, and displays thereon an image corresponding to the image signal.", Paragraph [0027]);
acquire a discrimination result of discriminating a region of interest within each of the plurality of endoscopic images ("In such an endoscope device, as a result of image analysis, information (hereinafter, also referred to as an object) specifying a location of interest, such as a result of lesion detection, is displayed on an observation screen, with the information being superimposed on a subject image. Known as a technique for superimposing an object on a subject image is a technique of: performing processing of detecting and cutting out, as an object, a moving object (a location of interest) in a captured image; and superimposing the object on the acquired captured image at the time of completion of this processing", Paragraph [0004]; "The superimposed object information generating unit 23 may generate the spatial information of a superimposed object ", Paragraph [0033]); and
display the discrimination results on the monitor at an update interval exceeding an update interval of the plurality of endoscopic images displayed on the monitor (Figures 2 and 5; "FIG. 1 is a block diagram depicting a functional configuration of an image processing system 1 according to a first embodiment of the present disclosure. The image processing system 1 depicted in FIG. 1 includes an image processing apparatus 2, and a display device 3. By processing an image that has been acquired, the image processing apparatus 2 generates an image signal for display, which is displayed by the display device 3. The display device 3 receives the image signal generated by the image processing apparatus 2 via a video cable, and displays thereon an image corresponding to the image signal. The display device 3 is configured by use of liquid crystal or organic electroluminescence.", Paragraph [0027]; "…thus subject images sequentially acquired by the image acquiring unit 21 are able to be displayed on the display device 3 with superimposed objects being superimposed thereon, the superimposed objects having been reduced in positional displacement.", Paragraph [0049]; "FIG. 5 is given scale marks corresponding to time intervals, at which the subject images are input frame by frame. According to FIG. 5, the superimposed object information generating unit 23 requires a time period enough to subject images of five frames when generating spatial information of a superimposed object from a subject image. While the superimposed object information generating unit 23 is generating the spatial information of the corrected superimposed object through a superimposed object information generating thread, the object superimposing unit 27 performs superimposition processing by using spatial information of the superimposed object that was generated last time, through a superimposed object superimposing thread. In this superimposition processing, the inter-image correspondence information generating unit 25 generates inter-image correspondence information for: a detection target image, from which the spatial information of the superimposed object was generated last time; and a superimposition target image selected by the superimposition target image selecting unit 24. As described above, in the superimposition processing for the superimposed object, until the spatial information of the superimposed object is updated, the latest spatial information of the superimposed object stored in the superimposed object information storage unit 282 is repeatedly used.", Paragraph [0063]), wherein the image acquisition is at a faster interval than the interval in which the result is displayed, as shown in figure 2.
PNG
media_image1.png
376
399
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
249
670
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim 3
Regarding claim 3, dependent on claim 1, YAGUCHI teaches the invention as claimed in claim 1.
YAGUCHI further teaches wherein the discrimination results comprise information indicating whether the region of interest is an inflammation region ("The superimposed object information generating unit 23 generates spatial information of a superimposed object to be superimposed and placed on a location of interest in a subject image based on an image signal input from the image acquiring unit 21. A location of interest is, for example, a lesion location in an in-vivo image of a subject. A superimposed object is an object that is superimposed on a location of interest in a subject image and that specifies the location of interest. More specifically, for example, if a subject image is an image of a body cavity in a subject, a superimposed object is a rectangular frame surrounding a lesion site.", Paragraph [0031]).
Claim 4
Regarding claim 4, dependent on claim 1, YAGUCHI teaches the invention as claimed in claim 1.
YAGUCHI further teaches wherein the discrimination result displayed on a first image of the plurality of endoscopic images is output based on discrimination results of a plurality of second images captured before the first image, among the plurality of endoscopic images (Rejected as applied to claim 1).
Claim 5
Regarding claim 5, dependent on claim 1, YAGUCHI teaches the invention as claimed in claim 1.
YAGUCHI further teaches wherein the discrimination results are displayed to be superimposed on the respective endoscopic images (Rejected as applied to claim 3).
Claim 10
Regarding claim 10, dependent on claim 1, YAGUCHI teaches the invention as claimed in claim 1.
YAGUCHI further teaches wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: acquire a detection result of detecting the region of interest within each of the plurality of endoscopic images ("The detection target image selecting unit 22 selects, from the subject images, a detection target subject image (hereinafter, also referred to as a detection target image), from which a location to be noted (hereinafter, also referred to as a location of interest) in the subject images is to be detected.", Paragraph [0030]); and
sequentially display the acquired detection results on the monitor ("The superimposition target image selecting unit 24 selects, from the subject images, a superimposition target image, on which the superimposed object is to be superimposed and which is to be displayed on the display device 3, the superimposed object having the spatial information generated by the superimposed object information generating unit 23.", Paragraph [0034]), wherein
an update interval of displaying the detection results on the monitor is different from the update interval of displaying the discrimination results on the monitor in a case of displaying the detection results on the monitor (Rejected as applied to claim 1).
Claim 17, an independent method claim, is rejected for the same reasons as applied to claim 1.
Claim 18, an independent non-transitory computer-readable storage medium claim, is rejected for the same reasons as applied to claim 1.
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.
Claims 2, 6 – 9, and 11 – 16 (As Best Understood) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Publication No. 2019/0099060 A1 to YAGUCHI in view of US Publication No. 2021/0052137 A1 to MIURA et al. (hereinafter MIURA).
Claim 2
Regarding claim 2, dependent on claim 1, YAGUCHI teaches the invention as claimed in claim 1.
YAGUCHI does not explicitly teach wherein the discrimination results comprise information indicating whether the region of interest is a tumor or a non-tumor.
However, MIURA teaches wherein the discrimination results comprise information indicating whether the region of interest is a tumor or a non-tumor (Figure 8; "In the present embodiment, a lesion is discriminated from the endoscopic image using the trained model generated in the first embodiment.", Paragraph [0216]; "…the region of the discriminated lesion is colored and is displayed to be superimposed on the endoscopic image. The lesion region may be surrounded by a frame and may be displayed in a superimposed manner.", Paragraph [0218]), wherein the discrimination results in #1 indicate the ROI is "Ischemic Colitis" also known as inflammatory to one skilled in the art, while the discrimination results in #2 indicate the ROI is colorectal cancer (tumor).
PNG
media_image3.png
644
952
media_image3.png
Greyscale
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 teachings of YAGUCHI to incorporate the discrimination results indicating if the ROI is a tumor or non-tumor, as disclosed by MIURA. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to determine the severity of the lesion and to determine the most appropriate plan of action based on the results.
Claim 6
Regarding claim 6, dependent on claim 1, YAGUCHI teaches the invention as claimed in claim 1.
YAGUCHI does not explicitly teach wherein the endoscopic images are displayed in a different region than the discrimination results.
However, MIURA teaches wherein the endoscopic images are displayed in a different region than the discrimination results (Figure 8).
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 teachings of YAGUCHI to incorporate the results being displayed in a different region than the results, as disclosed by MIURA. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to reduce the potential clutter on the image and to be able to clearly see the object detected, while also being able to clearly see the discrimination results of the respective image displayed.
Claim 7
Regarding claim 7, dependent on claim 1, YAGUCHI teaches the invention as claimed in claim 1.
YAGUCHI does not explicitly teach wherein the discrimination results are displayed as text information.
However, MIURA teaches wherein the discrimination results are displayed as text information (Figure 8).
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 teachings of YAGUCHI to incorporate the discrimination results to be displayed as text, as disclosed by MIURA. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to allow the reviewer to clearly read the results and the texts allows for a more accurate description to be displayed, along with other possible information like potential treatment plans.
Claim 8
Regarding claim 8, dependent on claim 1, YAGUCHI teaches the invention as claimed in claim 1.
YAGUCHI does not explicitly wherein the plurality of endoscopic images are images captured by irradiating light of a specific wavelength range narrower than a white wavelength range from the endoscope.
However, MIURA teaches wherein the plurality of endoscopic images are images captured by irradiating light of a specific wavelength range narrower than a white wavelength range from the endoscope ("The medical image processing apparatus wherein the fluorescent light is obtained by irradiating the inside of the living body with excitation light whose peak is 390 nm or greater and 470 nm or less.", Paragraph [0243]), wherein those ranges are narrower than the white light spectrum.
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 teachings of YAGUCHI to incorporate the use of a fluorescent light that irradiates within a predetermined range, as disclosed by MIURA. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to more accurately be able to determine a discrimination result.
Claim 9
Regarding claim 9, dependent on claim 1, YAGUCHI teaches the invention as claimed in claim 1.
YAGUCHI does not explicitly wherein the plurality of endoscopic images are images captured by irradiating light including in wavelength range of 390 to 450 nm or 530 to 550 nm.
However, MIURA teaches wherein the plurality of endoscopic images are images captured by irradiating light including in wavelength range of 390 to 450 nm or 530 to 550 nm (Rejected as applied to claim 8).
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 teachings of YAGUCHI to incorporate the use of a fluorescent light that irradiates within a predetermined range, as disclosed by MIURA. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to more accurately be able to determine a discrimination result.
Claims 11 – 16 recite combinations of the above-rejected dependent claims and are therefore rejected for the same reasons as applied to the above claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ronde Miller whose telephone number is (703) 756-5686 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 Gregory Morse can be reached on (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.
/RONDE LEE MILLER/Examiner, Art Unit 2663
/SEAN M CONNER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2663
Prosecution Insights