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 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.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meguro (US Pub No. 2021/0192738) in view of Lee et al. (US Pub No. 2016/0051220).
With regards to claim 19, Meguro discloses a diagnosis support method comprising:
acquiring an ultrasound image (paragraphs [0106]-[0107], referring to the image
acquisition unit (22) configured for importing an endoscopic image (18), paragraph [0210], referring to the image being generated by an ultrasound diagnostic apparatus; Figures 1-3);
displaying the acquired ultrasound image on a display device (screen (40) of
monitor (400)) (paragraphs [0128]-[0129], referring to the screen (40) of the monitor (400) displaying an observation image display region (42) which is a region in which the image as the observation image is displayed; Figures 1-3, 5), and
displaying, in the ultrasound image, a first mark (BB) capable of specifying a lesion region (LS) detected from the ultrasound image within the ultrasound image (42) (paragraphs [0114]-[0117], referring to the lesion detection unit (26) being a processing unit that detects the lesion shown in the image acquired via the image acquisition unit (22) and generates information indicating the position of the lesion and lesion type information indicating the lesion type; paragraph [0129], referring to a lesion being detected from the image, wherein a bounding box (BB) surrounds the region of the lesion (LS) in the image is displayed to overlap the image; Figures 1-3, 5),
displaying a second mark (44) capable of specifying an organ region detected from the ultrasound image (paragraphs [0110]-[0113], referring to the site information acquisition unit (24) being a processing unit that acquires site information indicating the site of the object in the human body, which is shown in the image acquired via the image acquisition unit, wherein the “site” is the human organ and the site information may be a label corresponding to the name of the organ; paragraph [0130], referring to the screen (40) of the monitor (400) including a display region corresponding to the site information report region (44) which reports the site information (i.e. organ label/mark); Figures 1-3, 5),
wherein the first mark is displayed in a state of being emphasized more than other regions (paragraph [0129], referring to the bounding box (BB) being an example of the report mode of emphasizing the position of the lesion LS; Figure 5, wherein the bounding box (BB) emphasizes the lesion (LS) over other regions present in the image (42)),
the ultrasound image is a moving image including a plurality of frames (paragraphs [0031]-[0032], referring acquiring a time-series medical image, which may be a video (i.e. moving image)).
With regards to the limitation “in a case in which N and M are natural numbers equal to or larger than 2, displaying the first mark in the ultrasound image in a case in which the lesion region is detected from N consecutive frames among the plurality of frames, and displaying the second mark in the ultrasound image in a case in which the organ region is detected from M consecutive frames among the plurality of frames, and N is a value smaller than M”, the limitation is directed to a contingent limitation. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. See MPEP 2111.04. As such, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the method of claim 19 having the above contingent limitation does not include the above steps of displaying the first marker in the ultrasound image “in a case in which N and M are natural numbers…in a case in which the lesion region is detected from N consecutive frames among the plurality of frames” and displaying the second mark in the ultrasound image “in a case in which the organ region is detected from M consecutive frames among the plurality of frames and N is a value smaller than M”.
However, Meguro does not specifically disclose that the second mark is specifically displayed within the ultrasound image.
Lee et al. disclose an ultrasound diagnosis apparatus comprising a region
determining unit (420) that determines a bile duct region (i.e. organ region) and a tumor candidate region (i.e. lesion region) in the ultrasound image (Abstract; paragraphs [0067], [0069]; Figure 4). A display unit (440) displays a bile duct region and a gallbladder region in different colors and may also display blood vessels around the bile duct region or the gallbladder region in different colors, wherein the tumor candidate regions may also be displayed using various types of indicators (paragraph [0090]; Figures 4, 6, note that the lesion/tumor region and organ region detected from the ultrasound image are displayed within the ultrasound image). An arrow or circular dotted line may be a type of indicator, wherein indicators of the tumor candidate regions may be displayed in various modes such as colors and figures (paragraph [0090]; Figures 6-8, note that the lesion/tumor region is emphasized more than a second mark (i.e. color) specifying an organ region detected from the ultrasound image). A resection pattern of the bile duct region may be acquired by comparing a shape of the tumor candidate region and the bile duct region with a predetermined pattern (paragraphs [0069]-[0070]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have the second mark of Meguro be specifically displayed within the ultrasound image, as taught by Lee et al., in order to be able to compare the shape of the lesion region with the organ region and determine a resection pattern for the organ region (paragraphs [0069]-[0070]). Alternatively, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include and display a second mark specifying the organ region in the ultrasound image of Meguro, as Meguro requires specifying the organ region and Lee et al. teach a known effective technique for specifying the organ by displaying a second mark specifying the organ region within the ultrasound image. That is, using the known technique for specifying an organ region, as desired by Meguro, by displaying a second mark capable of specifying the organ region within the ultrasound region, as taught by Lee et al., would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-11, 15-18 and 20 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
With regards to claims 1 and 20, the prior art does not teach or disclose that in a case in which N and M are natural numbers equal to or larger than 2, the processor is configured to: display the first mark in the ultrasound image in a case in which the lesion region is detected from N consecutive frames among the plurality of frames, and display the second mark in the ultrasound image in a case in which the organ region is detected from M consecutive frames among the plurality of frames, and N is a value smaller than M, in combination with the other claimed elements.
The dependent claims are indicated as allowable due to their dependency.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pgs. 9-13, filed April 17, 2026, with respect to claims 1-11, 15-18 and 20 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 USC 103 rejection of claims 1-11, 15-18 and 20 has been withdrawn.
However, claim 19 is directed to a method claim, wherein the limitation “in a case in which N and M are natural numbers equal to or larger than 2, displaying the first mark in the ultrasound image in a case in which the lesion region is detected from N consecutive frames among the plurality of frames, and displaying the second mark in the ultrasound image in a case in which the organ region is detected from M consecutive frames among the plurality of frames, and N is a value smaller than M” is directed to a contingent limitation. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. See MPEP 2111.04. As such, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the method of claim 19 having the above contingent limitation does not include the above steps of displaying the first marker in the ultrasound image “in a case in which N and M are natural numbers…in a case in which the lesion region is detected from N consecutive frames among the plurality of frames” and displaying the second mark in the ultrasound image “in a case in which the organ region is detected from M consecutive frames among the plurality of frames and N is a value smaller than M”.
The method claim 19 therefore remains rejected.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATHERINE L FERNANDEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-1957. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 AM - 5:30 PM (ET).
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, Pascal Bui-Pho can be reached at (571) 272-2714. 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.
/KATHERINE L FERNANDEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3798
Prosecution Insights