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 has been considered and are addressed below.
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, 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”, “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”
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. 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 § 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)(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.
Claim(s) 1-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Tsukagoshi US 2024/0188911).
The applied reference has a common Inventors with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B) if the same invention is not being claimed; or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed in the reference and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement.
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, 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.”);
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”).
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