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 .
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 12/06/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claim 3 is 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 3 recites “a predefined reference value” in line 3. It is unclear if the “predefined reference value” as associated with a cluster is the same as the associated foreground region’s “a predefined reference value” of claim 2. If they are the same, please amend to “the predefined reference value” to avoid insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. If they are not the same, please distinguish between first and second predefined reference values.
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 1, 6, 7 and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hwang et al. (Pub. No.: US 2018/0100764) in view of Zouridakis (Pub. No.: US 2014/0036054).
Consider claims 1, 7, Hwang discloses a melanoma discrimination device based on a spectral image (paragraph [0051], Figs. 1A, 1B, mobile spectral imaging device 100 may be equipped with a user terminal 200 in diagnosing melanoma, see paragraph [0115]), the device comprising:
a spectral camera acquiring a spectral image of an examination target containing at least one skin lesion (paragraph [0051], a photographing function for acquiring a multispectral image, and may capture wavelength-specific spectral images of the skin of an object); and
a processor (paragraph [0089], Fig. 6, controller 240) functionally connected to the spectral camera (paragraph [0089], Fig. 6, controller 240 may control the photographing unit 210) and configured to:
control the spectral camera to acquire a current spectral image of the examination target (paragraph [0051], a photographing function for acquiring a multispectral image, and may capture wavelength-specific spectral images of the skin of an object),
Hwang does not specifically disclose separate a foreground region where the at least one skin lesion has occurred and a background region other than the foreground region from the current spectral image, and compare at least a part of the separated foreground and background regions with a pre-stored reference model to output a melanoma discrimination result for the examination target.
Zouridakis discloses separate a foreground region where the at least one skin lesion has occurred and a background region other than the foreground region from the current spectral image (paragraph [0061], segmenting the image based on saliency values to identify pixels thereof as comprising the imaged object (i.e., foreground) or the background of the image to obtain an object boundary), and
compare at least a part of the separated foreground and background regions with a pre-stored reference model to output a melanoma discrimination result for the examination target (paragraph [0061], comparing the extracted features to known object features in a support vector machine trained on the known features to obtain a classification of the object and displaying the processed images and classification results wherein the support vector machine may be trained on features comprising a melanoma).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the processor as disclosed by Hwang with the processor as taught by Zouridakis in order to extract features from regions within the object boundary (Zouridakis, paragraph [0061]).
Consider claims 6, 10, Hwang does not specifically disclose wherein the processor is configured to: output the melanoma discrimination result through cross-validation between a melanoma discrimination result based on the foreground region and a melanoma discrimination result based on both the foreground region and the background region.
Zouridakis discloses wherein the processor is configured to: output the melanoma discrimination result through cross-validation between a melanoma discrimination result based on the foreground region and a melanoma discrimination result based on both the foreground region and the background region (paragraph [0080], ten times ten-fold cross-validation was performed to evaluate the performance).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the processor as disclosed by Hwang with processor as taught by Zouridakis to evaluate the performance of the method (Zouridakis, paragraph [0080]).
Consider claim 11, Hwang discloses a server device (paragraph [0103], Fig. 8, spectral image analysis server 300) supporting melanoma discrimination based on a spectral image (paragraph [0115], diagnosing melanoma using an analysis information storage unit 354 that stores a spectral spectrum at each stage of each skin disease), the device comprising:
a server communication circuit establishing a communication channel with a melanoma discrimination device (paragraph [0085], Fig. 6, user terminal 200) (paragraph [0099], Fig. 6, second communication unit 270 may communicate with the spectral image analysis server 300 via a wireless communication network or a WiFi network); and
a server processor (paragraph [0105], Fig. 9, diagnosis unit 310) functionally connected to the server communication circuit and configured to: receive a current spectral image of an examination target containing at least one skin lesion from the melanoma discrimination device (paragraph [0105], receiving wavelength-specific spectral images with reference values of corresponding wavelength bands for each skin lesion),
extract a pixel value where the at least one skin lesion has occurred from the current spectral image (paragraph [0106], extract a pixel value at a position of the lesion in each of the images),
perform melanoma discrimination on the examination target by comparing and analyzing the received wavelength-specific spectral images with a pre-stored reference model (paragraph [0105], comparing and analyzing a skin lesion with a reference value which is stored in advance), and
transmit a melanoma discrimination result to the melanoma discrimination device (paragraph [0098], Fig. 6, display 260 (of user terminal 200) may output a spectral spectrum or analysis result received from the spectral image analysis server).
Hwang does not specifically disclose separate a foreground region where the at least one skin lesion has occurred and a background region other than the foreground region from the current spectral image.
Zouridakis discloses separate a foreground region where the at least one skin lesion has occurred and a background region other than the foreground region from the current spectral image (paragraph [0061], segmenting the image based on saliency values to identify pixels thereof as comprising the imaged object (i.e., foreground) or the background of the image to obtain an object boundary).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the processor as disclosed by Hwang with the processor as taught by Zouridakis in order to extract features from regions within the object boundary (Zouridakis, paragraph [0061]).
Consider claim 12, Hwang does not specifically disclose wherein the server processor is configured to: perform the melanoma discrimination through cross-validation between a melanoma discrimination result based on the foreground region and a melanoma discrimination result based on both the foreground region and the background region.
Zouridakis discloses wherein the server processor is configured to: perform the melanoma discrimination through cross-validation between a melanoma discrimination result based on the foreground region and a melanoma discrimination result based on both the foreground region and the background region (paragraph [0080], ten times ten-fold cross-validation was performed to evaluate the performance).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the server processor as disclosed by Hwang with the processor as taught by Zouridakis in order to evaluate the performance of the method (Zouridakis, paragraph [0080]).
Claims 2 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Hwang and Zouridakis in view of Wu et al. (Pub. WO 2022/076234).
Consider claims 2, 8, the combination of Hwang and Zouridakis does not specifically disclose wherein the processor is configured to: detect an adjacency matrix based on a plurality of dimensional vectors and edges corresponding to distance values between the plurality of dimensional vectors by applying a nearest neighbor technique to the current spectral image, and
extract the foreground region based on edges greater than or equal to a predefined reference value in the adjacency matrix.
Wu discloses wherein the processor is configured to: detect an adjacency matrix based on a plurality of dimensional vectors and edges corresponding to distance values between the plurality of dimensional vectors by applying a nearest neighbor technique to the current spectral image (paragraph [0037], data field values of the adjacency matrix may be determined using a k-nearest neighbor algorithm), and
extract the foreground region based on edges greater than or equal to a predefined reference value in the adjacency matrix (paragraphs [0037], [0052], an edge may be created if the original edge weight is greater than or equal to the threshold value).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the processor as disclosed by the combination of Hwang and Zouridakis with the processor as taught by Wu to output whether the image is benign or adversarial (Wu, paragraph [0052].
Claims 13, 15, 19, 20, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hwang in view of Chang et al. (Pub. No.: KR 20220094791).
Consider claims 13, 19, Hwang discloses a melanoma examination device supporting a melanoma examination function based on a spectral image (paragraph [0051], Figs. 1A, 1B, mobile spectral imaging device 100 may be equipped with a user terminal 200 in diagnosing melanoma, see paragraph [0115]), the device comprising:
a spectral camera acquiring a spectral image of an examination target containing at least one skin lesion (paragraph [0051], a photographing function for acquiring a multispectral image, and may capture wavelength-specific spectral images of the skin of an object); and
a processor (paragraph [0089], Fig. 6, controller 240) functionally connected to the spectral camera (paragraph [0089], Fig. 6, controller 240 may control the photographing unit 210) and configured to:
control the spectral camera to acquire a current spectral image of the examination target (paragraph [0051], a photographing function for acquiring a multispectral image, and may capture wavelength-specific spectral images of the skin of an object),
Hwang does not specifically disclose detect a latent vector by applying the current spectral image to a pre-stored reference model, and
determine whether the examination target is melanoma based on directionality and form of a latent representation corresponding to the latent vector.
Chang discloses detect a latent vector by applying the current spectral image to a pre-stored reference model (paragraph [0093], extracting a specific latent vector from the skin disease image wherein the captured skin disease image is stored in memory, see paragraph [0083]), and
determine whether the examination target is melanoma based on directionality and form of a latent representation corresponding to the latent vector (paragraph [0116], generating an image including features similar to an actual image from the specific latent vector, and the discriminator determines whether the image generated is true or false).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the device as disclosed by Hwang with the device as taught by Chang to generate a more accurate skin disease generated image utilizing the extracted specific latent vector (Chang, paragraph [0093]).
Consider claim 15, the combination of Hwang and Chang discloses wherein the processor is configured to: determine a type of melanoma for the examination target based on the directionality and form of the latent representation (paragraph [0116], generating an image including features similar to an actual image from the specific latent vector, and the discriminator determines whether the image generated is true or false), and output information on the determined type of melanoma (paragraph [0077], displaying data/information required for implementing the skin disease data enhancement method).
Consider claim 20, the combination of Hwang and Chang discloses outputting information including the determined at least one of whether the examination target is melanoma and the type of melanoma (paragraph [0077], displaying data/information required for implementing the skin disease data enhancement method).
Consider claim 23, Hwang discloses a server device (paragraph [0103], Fig. 8, spectral image analysis server 300) supporting melanoma discrimination based on a spectral image (paragraph [0115], diagnosing melanoma using an analysis information storage unit 354 that stores a spectral spectrum at each stage of each skin disease), the device comprising:
a server communication circuit establishing a communication channel with a melanoma discrimination device (paragraph [0085], Fig. 6, user terminal 200) (paragraph [0099], Fig. 6, second communication unit 270 may communicate with the spectral image analysis server 300 via a wireless communication network or a WiFi network); and
a server processor (paragraph [0105], Fig. 9, diagnosis unit 310) functionally connected to the server communication circuit and configured to: receive a current spectral image of an examination target containing at least one skin lesion from the melanoma discrimination device (paragraph [0105], receiving wavelength-specific spectral images with reference values of corresponding wavelength bands for each skin lesion).
Hwang does not specifically disclose detect a latent vector by applying the current spectral image to a pre-stored reference model, and
determine whether the examination target is melanoma based on directionality and form of a latent representation corresponding to the latent vector.
Chang discloses detect a latent vector by applying the current spectral image to a pre-stored reference model (paragraph [0093], extracting a specific latent vector from the skin disease image wherein the captured skin disease image is stored in memory, see paragraph [0083]), and
determine whether the examination target is melanoma based on directionality and form of a latent representation corresponding to the latent vector (paragraph [0116], generating an image including features similar to an actual image from the specific latent vector, and the discriminator determines whether the image generated is true or false).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the device as disclosed by Hwang with the device as taught by Chang to generate a more accurate skin disease generated image utilizing the extracted specific latent vector (Chang, paragraph [0093]).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Hwang and Chang in view of Stamnes et al. (Pub. No.: US 2015/0297130).
Consider claim 14, Hwang does not specifically disclose wherein the processor is configured to: control the spectral camera so that a shooting angle and distance of the spectral camera with respect to the examination target become a predefined shooting angle and distance.
Stamnes discloses wherein the processor is configured to: control the spectral camera (Fig. 5, cameras 202) so that a shooting angle and distance of the spectral camera with respect to the examination target become a predefined shooting angle and distance (paragraph [0019], Fig. 5, cameras 202, fixed at angles of illumination and detection relative to a central opening 208 configured to be placed above the skin lesions).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the camera as disclosed by Hwang with the camera as taught by Stamnes to enhance the ability to retrieve information about the depth of the lesion (Stamnes, paragraph [0019].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-5, 9, 16-18, 21, 22, and 24 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claims 3, 9, the prior art of reference fails to disclose extract a cluster whose similarity with a cluster corresponding to a spectrum of the foreground region is higher than or equal to a predefined reference value.
Regarding claim 16, the prior art of reference fails to disclose determine that a magnitude of the skin lesion in the current spectral image is stronger the farther away the lesion is expressed from a center of the latent representation.
Regarding claims 17, 21, the prior art of reference fails to disclose divide the image into regions including the plurality of skin lesions, separate each skin lesion and a background region of a predetermined size surrounding each skin lesion in the divided regions, and perform sequential melanoma examinations on each of the separated skin lesions and background regions.
Regarding claims 18, 22, 24, the prior art of reference fails to disclose detect a cluster of latent representation most similar to a cluster corresponding to the current spectral image from the reference model, determine whether the cluster corresponding to the current spectral image is melanoma and a type of melanoma based on the cluster detected from the reference model.
The remaining claims are objected to due to dependence on the objected claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GERALD JOHNSON whose telephone number is (571)270-7685. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm EST.
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, Carey Michael can be reached at (571)270-7235. 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.
/Gerald Johnson/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3797
Prosecution Insights