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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-15 are pending in this application.
Drawings
The drawings received on 12/6/2024 are accepted for examination purposes.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/6/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 9-11 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Matsumura et al. (US-2017/0256054).
As to Claim 1, Matsumura teaches ‘A medical image processing method for processing image data of a living tissue, comprising: acquiring a front image and a tomographic image that are captured from a same living tissue of a same subject, wherein the front image is a two-dimensional image of the living tissue when viewed in a direction along an optical axis of imaging light, and the tomographic image is a two-dimensional image that spreads in a depth direction of the living tissue; displaying the front image and the tomographic image on a display unit [Fig 7, par 0077-0078, 0171-0172 – capturing and displaying a fundus tomographic image and a fundus front image]; specifying one of the front image and the tomographic image that are displayed on the display unit by setting a reference position on the one of the front image and the tomographic image through an operation unit controlled by a user, wherein the reference position serves a reference for enlarging and minimizing an image displayed on the display unit [par 0100-0105 – an instruction reception unit receives an instruction signal for setting a magnification (an enlargement rate or a reduction rate) by enlarging a specific region of a piece of selected image data displayed on the report]; changing a display magnification of the specified one of the front image and the tomographic image in response to the user operating the operation unit [par 0103-0110 – enlarging the specific region of the selected image data]; and synchronously changing a display magnification of an other of the front image and the tomographic image in accordance with a change in the display magnification of the specified one of the front image and the tomographic image [par 0110-0111 – synchronizing magnification and/or enlarged regions of at least two pieces of image data with each other]’.
As to Claim 2, Matsumura teaches ‘A medical image processing device that processes image data of a living tissue, comprising a control unit that is configured to perform: an image acquisition step of acquiring a front image and a tomographic image that are captured from a same living tissue of a same subject, wherein the front image is a two-dimensional image of the living tissue when viewed in a direction along an optical axis of imaging light, and the tomographic image is a two-dimensional image that spreads in a depth direction of the living tissue; an image display step of displaying the front image and the tomographic image on a display unit [Fig 7, par 0077-0078, 0171-0172 – capturing and displaying a fundus tomographic image and a fundus front image]; and when an instruction for changing a display magnification of one of the front image and the tomographic image is input into the display unit, a display magnification change step of changing, in accordance with the input instruction, both a display magnification of the one of the front image and the tomographic image for which the instruction was given and a display magnification of an other of the front image and the tomographic image for which the instruction was not given [par 0110-0111 – synchronizing magnification and/or enlarged regions of at least two pieces of image data with each other]’.
Further, in regards to claim 15, the medical image processing device of claim 1 performs the program embodied on the non-transitory computer readable storage medium of claim 15.
As to Claim 3, Matsumura teaches ‘wherein the front image is an angography front image generated by processing a plurality of OCT signals acquired by an OCT device at different timings at a same position of the living tissue [par 0036, 0062, 0065, 0167 – an ophthalmic OCT device captures fluorescent contrast images (i.e., angiography) of a first fundus front image having different examination dates]’.
As to Claim 9, Matsumura teaches ‘wherein at the magnification synchronization change step, the control unit is further configured to: receive an instruction for specifying a reference position in a display range of the front image or a display range of the tomographic image, wherein the reference position serves as a reference for enlarging and minimizing; and perform an enlarging process or a minimizing process on at least one of the front image and the tomographic image based on the specified reference position [par 0100-0106, 0110-0113 – an instruction reception unit receives an instruction signal for setting a magnification (an enlargement rate or a reduction rate) by enlarging a specific region of a piece of selected image data displayed on the report and synchronizing magnification and/or enlarged regions of at least two pieces of image data with each other]’.
As to Claim 10, Matsumura teaches ‘wherein when an instruction for returning at least one of a display magnification and a display position to an initial state is received, the control unit is further configured to perform a display reset step of resetting at least one of (i) the display magnification of the front image and the display magnification of the tomographic image and (ii) the display position for displaying within a display frame of the display unit to the initial state of starting display [par 0106, 0110-0113 – the image processing unit may enlarge or reduce (i.e., reset) the image data on the report based on an instruction signal for setting a magnification which is received by the instruction reception unit]’.
As to Claim 11, Matsumura teaches ‘wherein the control unit is further configured to perform, when an instruction for changing the display magnification of one of the front image and the tomographic image is input into the display unit, a magnification single change step of enlarging or minimizing, in accordance with the input instruction, only the display magnification of the one of the front image and the tomographic image for which the display magnification change instruction was given, and the control unit is further configured to selectively perform either the magnification synchronization change step or the magnification single change step in accordance with an instruction input by a user [par 0102-0110 – based on an instruction signal received by the instruction reception unit from a user may individual change magnification and enlarged regions of one or two or more images by selecting at least one piece of image data displayed on the report, where if two or more images are selected for magnification and/or enlarging regions, performing synchronize magnifications and/or enlarged regions of the two or more images]’.
As to Claim 14, Matsumura teaches ‘wherein the control unit is further configured to, at the magnification synchronization change step: set a reference position for enlarging and minimizing at a same position in a display range of each of the plurality of front images; perform an enlarging process or a minimizing process on the plurality of front images based on the set reference position; set a reference position for enlarging and minimizing at a same position in a display range of each of the plurality of tomographic images; and perform an enlarging process or a minimizing process on the plurality of tomographic images based on the set reference position [par 0110-0113 – motion contrast images of the same region which are acquired based on a plurality of OCT signals may have a narrower imaging range than that of a fundus image captured by a fundus camera or the like, where different types of image data are arranged on the same report an may automatically adjust an enlarged region, thereby adjusting an enlarged region of an image having a wide imaging range in accordance with an image having a narrow imaging range that are magnified and/or enlarged synchronously]’.
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) 4-5 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsumura et al. (US-2017/0256054) in view of Boyd et al. (US-2022/0207729).
As to Claim 4, Matsumura teaches all of the claimed elements/features as recited in independent claim 2. Matsumura does not disclose expressly ‘wherein the tomographic image is captured by an OCT device that is configured to capture an image of a living tissue using a principle of optical coherence tomography, and information of motion contrast data generated by processing a plurality of OCT signals that are acquired by the OCT device at different timings at a same position of the living tissue is superimposed on the tomographic image’.
Matsumura teaches an ophthalmic OCT device captures an OCT motion contrast En face image having different examination dates are output over time of a fundus tomographic image with a superimposed visual field measurement function [par 0036, 0062, 0064-0065, 0075, 0112, 0167].
Boyd teaches visual examples of a sequence of DNIRA images and OCT images of a patent’s eyes obtained over four sessions aligned [Figs 42, 44, par 0387, 0393-0397].
Matsumura in view of Boyd teaches ‘wherein the tomographic image is captured by an OCT device that is configured to capture an image of a living tissue using a principle of optical coherence tomography, and information of motion contrast data generated by processing a plurality of OCT signals that are acquired by the OCT device at different timings at a same position of the living tissue is superimposed on the tomographic image [Matsumura: par 0036, 0062, 0064-0065, 0075, 0112, 0167; Boyd: Figs 42, 44, par 0387, 0393-0397]’.
Matsumura and Boyd are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely medical imaging processing systems. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include a sequence of DNIRA and OCT images, as taught by Boyd. The motivation for doing so would have been to permit better biomarkers for clinical trial enrollment, outcome measure, and for the evaluation of patient performance in response to such treatments in the clinical course of care. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Boyd with Matsumura to obtain the invention as specified in claim 4.
As to Claim 5, Matsumura in view of Boyd teaches ‘wherein at the magnification synchronization change step, the control unit is further configured to change both the display magnification of the front image and the display magnification of the tomographic image while synchronizing a display range in an extending direction, which is a direction perpendicular to the depth direction, for the tomographic image in the display unit and a display range in the extending direction for the front image in the display unit with each other [Matsumura: par 0110-0113, 0189-0190, 0196, 0226 – synchronizing magnification and/or enlarged regions of at least two pieces of image data with each other having different depth directions, where an OCT image may have a narrower imaging range than that of a fundus image; Boyd: Figs 15B, par 0246 – a visual representation of an upper image using DNIRA and a lower image representing OCT]’.
Matsumura and Boyd are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely medical imaging processing systems. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include a sequence of DNIRA and OCT images, as taught by Boyd. The motivation for doing so would have been to permit better biomarkers for clinical trial enrollment, outcome measure, and for the evaluation of patient performance in response to such treatments in the clinical course of care. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Boyd with Matsumura to obtain the invention as specified in claim 5.
As to Claim 12, Matsumura in view of Boyd teaches ‘wherein the control unit is further configured to: acquire, at the image acquisition step, a plurality of image sets each of which is a set of the front image and the tomographic image that are captured from a same living tissue of a same subject; display, at the image display step, the plurality of image sets on the display unit; and when an instruction for changing the display magnification of one of a plurality of front images and a plurality of tomographic images included in the plurality of image sets is input into the display unit at the magnification synchronization change step, synchronously change the display magnifications of all the plurality of front images and the display magnifications of all the plurality of tomographic images included in the plurality of image sets in accordance with the input instruction [Matsumura: par Fig 7, 0077-0078, 0102-0110 – displaying a fundus tomographic image and a fundus front image and based on an instruction signal received by the instruction reception unit from a user may individually change magnification and enlarged regions of two or more images by selecting at least one piece of image data displayed on the report, where if two or more images are selected for magnification and/or enlarging regions, performing synchronize magnifications and/or enlarged regions of the two or more images; Boyd: Figs 15B, 42, 44, par 0246, 0387, 0393-0397 – a visual representation of an upper image using DNIRA and a lower image representing OCT or representative examples of a sequence of DNIRA images and OCT images of a patent’s eyes obtained over four sessions aligned]’.
Matsumura and Boyd are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely medical imaging processing systems. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include a sequence of DNIRA and OCT images, as taught by Boyd. The motivation for doing so would have been to permit better biomarkers for clinical trial enrollment, outcome measure, and for the evaluation of patient performance in response to such treatments in the clinical course of care. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Boyd with Matsumura to obtain the invention as specified in claim 12.
As to Claim 13, Boyd teaches ‘wherein the control unit is further configured to: align, at the image display step, the plurality of front images included in the plurality of image sets with each other; and display, on the display unit, the plurality of front images that have been aligned [Figs 42, 44, par 0387, 0393-0397 – visual representative examples of a sequence of DNIRA images (left images) and OCT images (right images) of a patent’s eyes obtained over four sessions aligned]’.
Matsumura and Boyd are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely medical imaging processing systems. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include a sequence of DNIRA and OCT images, as taught by Boyd. The motivation for doing so would have been to permit better biomarkers for clinical trial enrollment, outcome measure, and for the evaluation of patient performance in response to such treatments in the clinical course of care. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Boyd with Matsumura to obtain the invention as specified in claim 13.
Claim(s) 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsumura et al. in view of Tetsuya et al. (JP-2013-154119A).
As to Claim 6, Matsumura teaches all of the claimed elements/features as recited in independent claim 2. Matsumura does not disclose expressly ‘wherein the control unit is further configured to: acquire, at the image acquisition step, the front image, a first tomographic image that spreads in a first extending direction that is one of directions perpendicularly intersecting the depth direction, and a second tomographic image that spreads in a second extending direction that perpendicularly intersects the depth direction and is different from the first extending direction; display, at the image display step, the front image, the first tomographic image, and the second tomographic image on the display unit’.
Matsumura teaches displaying a fundus tomographic image and a fundus front image and based on an instruction signal received by the instruction reception unit from a user may individually change magnification and enlarged regions of two or more images by selecting at least one piece of image data displayed on the report, where if two or more images are selected for magnification and/or enlarging regions, performing synchronize magnifications and/or enlarged regions of the two or more images [Fig 7, par 0077-0078, 0102-0110].
Tetsuya teaches displaying a frontal view of the fundus, a first fundus tomography image (i.e., first extending direction) and second fundus tomography image (i.e., second extending direction [Figs 2, 3, par 0015-0017, 0021, 0062-0072].
Matsumura in view of Tetsuya teaches ‘wherein the control unit is further configured to: acquire, at the image acquisition step, the front image, a first tomographic image that spreads in a first extending direction that is one of directions perpendicularly intersecting the depth direction, and a second tomographic image that spreads in a second extending direction that perpendicularly intersects the depth direction and is different from the first extending direction; display, at the image display step, the front image, the first tomographic image, and the second tomographic image on the display unit; and when an instruction for changing the display magnification of one of the front image, the first tomographic image, and the second tomographic image that are displayed on the display unit is input, synchronously change, at the magnification synchronization change step, the display magnification of the front image, the display magnification of the first tomographic image, and the display magnification of the second tomographic image [Matsumura: Fig 7, par 0077-0078, 0102-0110; Tetsuya: Figs 2, 3, par 0015-0017, 0021, 0062-0072]’.
Matsumura and Tetsuya are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely medical imaging processing systems. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include displaying two tomography images and a frontal view image, as taught by Tetsuya. The motivation for doing so would have been to providing an ophthalmic analysis device that can perform a good analysis of an eye under examination in which tomographic images are displayed in cross-sectional planes that are mutually orthogonal to each other. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Tetsuya with Matsumura to obtain the invention as specified in claim 6.
As to Claim 7, Matsumura in the proposed combination teaches ‘wherein the control unit is further configured to perform: a first reference position setting step of setting a first reference position that serves as a reference for expanding and minimizing the first tomographic image in the first extending direction; and a second reference position setting step of setting a second reference position that serves as a reference for expanding and minimizing the second tomographic image in the second extending direction, and at the magnification synchronization change step, the control unit is further configured to synchronously change the display magnification of the first tomographic image and the display magnification of the second tomographic image by setting the first reference position as the reference for expanding and minimizing the first tomographic image and setting the second reference position as the reference for expanding and minimizing the second tomographic image [par Fig 7, 0077-0078, 0102-0110 – displaying a fundus tomographic image and a fundus front image and based on an instruction signal received by the instruction reception unit from a user may individually change magnification and enlarged regions of two or more images by selecting at least one piece of image data displayed on the report, such as a lesion portion or another region (i.e., reference positions) where if two or more images are selected for magnification and/or enlarging regions, performing synchronize magnifications and/or enlarged regions of the two or more images]’.
As to Claim 8, Tetsuya in the proposed combination teaches ‘wherein the control unit is further configured to perform a reference position display step of displaying the first reference position and the second reference position on the front image displayed on the display unit [par 0016-0017, 0025-0026, 0062, 0067 – synchronization movement of a pointer, where when a pointer is used for a frontal image the first and second tomographic images are correspondingly moved]’.
Matsumura and Tetsuya are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely medical imaging processing systems. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include displaying two tomography images and a frontal view image, as taught by Tetsuya. The motivation for doing so would have been to providing an ophthalmic analysis device that can perform a good analysis of an eye under examination in which tomographic images are displayed in cross-sectional planes that are mutually orthogonal to each other. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Tetsuya with Matsumura to obtain the invention as specified in claim 8.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record
a. US Publication No. 2017/0256054
b. US Publication No. 2022/0207729
c. JP Publication No. 2013-154119A
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
d. US Publication No. 2024/0095876
e. US Publication No. 2009/0123052
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MIYA J CATO whose telephone number is (571)270-3954. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 830-530.
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, Akwasi Sarpong can be reached at 571.270.3438. 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.
/MIYA J CATO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2681
Prosecution Insights