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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-16 have been considered and are addressed below.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 9-16-26 has been entered.
Response to Amendment/Arguments
Applicant’s amendments filed on 9-16-26 have been entered and are addressed below.
The 112 rejection is removed in view of applicant’s clarifications regarding the PCCT scan.
Applicant argues that the Tsukagoshi does not disclose the amended claims. Applicant’s arguments is moot in view of applicant’s amendments and are addressed below.
With respect to applicants arguments regarding the 101, that the claims are not directed to any of the above concepts. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The acquisition of generation information and processing information are broad that it can be any information that it can be settings to perform the scan. The interactions of the imaging apparatus with the processing circuitry are interactions of two entities. According to MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)II the sub-groupings encompass both activity of a single person (for example, a person following a set of instructions or a person signing a contract online) and activity that involves multiple people (such as a commercial interaction), and thus, certain activity between a person and a computer (for example a method of anonymous loan shopping that a person conducts using a mobile phone) may fall within the "certain methods of organizing human activity" grouping. Additionally the acquiring of data and performing analyzing on acquired data can fall under mental process similar to that of Electric Power Group V Alstom.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claims 1-16 are drawn to a computer implemented computer readable non-transitory medium, computer implemented method, system which is/are statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES).
Independent claims 1, 12 and 13, recite “acquire examination information related to a PCCT scan prior to the PCCT scan, the examination information including generation purpose information indicating a generation purpose of an image and generation process information indicating a generation process of the image according to the generation purpose, the generation purpose information and the generation process information being text information”, “generate according to the generation process a PCCT image according to the generation purpose based on count data collected by the PCCT scan”, “store the examination information including the generation purpose information and the generation process information in association with the PCCT image”, “display the PCCT image, text indicating the generation purpose information and text indicating the generation process information”.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Additionally the steps can also be interpreted as falling within the “Mental Process” grouping. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea (Step 2A Prong One: YES).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims are abstract but for the inclusion of the additional elements including, “medical image processing apparatus”, “circuitry”, “storage device” which are additional elements that are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instruction to apply the exception using generic computer components. See: MPEP 2106.05(f).
The additional elements are merely incidental or token additions to the claim that do not alter or affect how the process steps or functions in the abstract idea are performed (e.g., the “processor” language is incidental to what it is “configured” to perform). Therefore, the claimed additional elements do not add meaningful limitations to the indicated claims beyond a general linking to a technological environment. See: MPEP 2106.05(h).
The claims does not recite additional element which amounts to extra-solution activity concerning mere data gathering. The specification (e.g., as excerpted above) does not provide any indication that the additional elements are anything other than well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when claimed in a merely generic manner (as they are here). See: MPEP 2106.05(g).
Further, the claimed additional elements, identified above, are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they are generic components that are not integrated into the claim because they are merely incidental or token additions to the claim that do not alter or affect how the process steps or functions in the abstract idea are performed. Therefore, the claimed additional elements do not add meaningful limitations to the indicated claims beyond a general linking to a technological environment. See: MPEP 2106.05(h).
The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Hence, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Accordingly, the claims are directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A Prong Two: NO).
Step 2B:
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, using the additional elements to perform the abstract idea amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic components cannot provide an inventive concept. See: MPEP 2106.05(f).
Further, the claimed additional elements, identified above, are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they are generic components that are not integrated into the claim because they are merely incidental or token additions to the claim that do not alter or affect how the process steps or functions in the abstract idea are performed. Therefore, the claimed additional elements do not add meaningful limitations to the indicated claims beyond a general linking to a technological environment. See: MPEP 2106.05(h).
Further, the claimed additional elements, identified above, are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they are generic components that are configured to perform well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry. See: MPEP 2106.05(d). Said additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and provide conventional functions that do not add meaningful limits to practicing the abstract idea. The originally filed specification supports this conclusion at Figure 1, and
Paragraph 31 recite “processing circuitry including a central processing unit (CPU), a micro processing unit (MPU), or the like, and a drive mechanism such as a motor and an actuator. The processing circuitry includes a processor such as a CPU and a memory such as a read only memory (ROM) and a random access memory (RAN) as hardware resources”.
Paragraph 35 recites “a storage device such as a hard disk drive (HDD), a solid state drive (SSD), or an integrated circuit storage device that stores various types of information. The memory 41 stores, for example, count data and PCCT image data. The memory 41 may be a portable storage medium such as a compact disc (CD), a digital versatile disc (DVD), or a flash memory, in addition to an HDD, an SSD, or the like.”
The claims does not recite additional element which amounts to extra-solution activity concerning mere data gathering. The specification (e.g., as excerpted above) does not provide any indication that the additional elements are anything other than well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when claimed in a merely generic manner (as they are here). See: MPEP 2106.05(g).
Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination, the claims simply instruct the additional elements to implement the concept described above in the identification of abstract idea with routine, conventional activity specified at a high level of generality in a particular technological environment.
Hence, the claims as a whole, considering the additional elements individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea (Step 2B: NO).
Dependent claim(s) 2-11, 14-16 when analyzed as a whole, considering the additional elements individually and/or as an ordered combination, are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. These claims fail to remedy the deficiencies of their parent claims above, and are therefore rejected for at least the same rationale as applied to their parent claims above, and incorporated herein. Additionally, the devices mentioned in dependents claim are used as input devices.
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsukagoshi US 2024/0188911) in view of Hofmann (2020/0297299).
With respect to claim 1 Tsukagoshi teaches a medical image processing apparatus comprising a processing circuitry configured to:
acquire examination information related to a PCCT scan prior to the PCCT scan, the examination information including generation purpose information indicating a generation purpose of an image and generation process information indicating a generation process of the image according to the generation purpose (Trsukagoshi paragraph 132 “order by dynamic PCCT scan or the like are acquired, and a series of the chronological three-dimensional histograms 3HG are displayed on the display 42. That is, in the present application example, the processing circuitry 44 acquires, by the acquisition function 443, a series of pieces of energy bin data that are successively generated in chronological order by dynamic PCCT scan or the like. Subsequently, the processing circuitry 44 reconstructs, by the reconstruction processing function 444, a series of the energy band images EBI in chronological order” and paragraph 67);
generate, according to the generation process, a PCCT image according to the generation purpose based on count data collected by the PCCT scan (Tsukagoshi paragraph 132 “the processing circuitry 44 generates, by the image processing function 445, a series of the energy integrated images EID in chronological order based on the series of chronological energy band images EBI”); and
store the examination information including the generation purpose information and the generation process information in a storage device in association with the PCCT image (Tsukagoshi paragraph 136 “stores the chronological energy integrated images EID, the three-dimensional histogram 3HG, the two-dimensional histogram 2HG, and the analysis result in an associated manner in the memory 41”);
display the PCCT image, text indicating the generation purpose information and text indicating the generation process information (Tsukagoshi paragraph 91 and Fig. 6 and Fig. 7 recites “FIG. 6, the average value, the standard deviation (SD), the frequency distribution, the iodine concentration, the atomic number, and a water component, an iodine component, a Ca component, and a Fe component in material decomposition are checked. After this step, analysis values corresponding to the checked analysis items are calculated by a calculation function (not illustrated) of the processing circuitry 44 on the basis of the plurality of pieces of energy bin data or the plurality of energy band images EBI. For example, the calculation function calculates analysis values corresponding to the checked items in the designation screen SS, on the basis of the PCCT-specific image. As for details of processes for calculating the analysis values, known methods are appropriately applicable, and therefore, explanation thereof will be omitted”).
Tsukagoshi does not explicitly teach that the generation purpose information and the generation process information being in text information.
Hofmann teaches t he computer programs may include: (i) descriptive text to be parsed, such as HTML (hypertext markup language) or XML (extensible markup language), (ii) assembly code, (iii) object code generated from source code by a compiler, (iv) source code for execution by an interpreter, (v) source code for compilation and execution by a just-in-time compiler (Hofmann paragraph 64).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to combine the teachings of Tsukagoshi in view of Hofmann at the time of filing with the motivation of allowing an improved provision of data for estimating the success and/or risks inherent in a therapeutic decision (Hofmann paragraph 7).
Claim 12 is rejected as above.
Claim 13 is rejected as above.
With respect to claim 2 Tsukagoshi teaches the medical image processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the generation process is represented by a combination of energy integral image reconstruction, material decomposition, material decomposition image reconstruction, virtual monochromatic image generation, and/or material map generation (Tsukagoshi paragraph 70).
Claim 15 is rejected as above.
With respect to claim 3 Tsukagoshi teaches the medical image processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to: further acquire bin setting information indicating the number of energy bins and/or energy range in the PCCT scan; and further associate the bin setting information with the PCCT image (Tsukagoshi paragraph 138).
With respect to claim 4 Tsukagoshi teaches the medical image processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to display the examination information including the generation purpose information and the generation process information on a display device together with the PCCT image (Tsukagoshi paragraph 48).
Claim 14 is rejected as above.
With respect to claim 5 Tsukagoshi teaches the medical image processing apparatus according to claim 4, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to: acquire the PCCT image and the examination information from the storage device; and display the acquired examination information together with the PCCT image (Tsukagoshi paragraph 62).
With respect to claim 6 Tsukagoshi teaches the medical image processing apparatus according to claim 4, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to superimpose and display text indicating the generation purpose information and text indicating the generation process information on the PCCT image (Tsukagoshi paragraph 62).
With respect to claim 7 Tsukagoshi teaches the medical image processing apparatus according to claim 4, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to switch display or non-display of each item included in the examination information according to a user's instruction or a predetermined algorithm (Tsukagoshi paragraph 118).
With respect to claim 8 Tsukagoshi teaches the medical image processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to input the examination information in a comment input field of the PCCT image reconstructed (Tsukagoshi paragraph 95).
With respect to claim 9 Tsukagoshi teaches the medical image processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to input the examination information in a data element corresponding to a DICOM standard tag of the PCCT image reconstructed (Tsukagoshi paragraph 100).
With respect to claim 10 Tsukagoshi teaches the medical image processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to input the examination information in a data element corresponding to a DICOM private tag of the PCCT image reconstructed (Tsukagoshi paragraph 101).
With respect to claim 11 Tsukagoshi teaches the medical image processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to associate an intermediate image generated in the generation process of the PCCT image with other generation process information corresponding to the intermediate image and store the intermediate image in the storage device (Tsukagoshi paragraph 107).
Claim 16 is rejected as above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REGINALD R REYES whose telephone number is (571)270-5212. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-4:30 M-F.
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, Shahid R. Merchant can be reached at (571) 270-1360. 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.
REGINALD R. REYES
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3684
/REGINALD R REYES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3684
