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.
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 (1-15, 20) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter, specifically an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims (1-15, 20) are directed to the abstract idea of Mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion).
“acquire a plurality of medical images along a time series, the plurality of medical images depicting an observation target region; and perform image recognition processing on the plurality of medical images to detect a state change of the observation target region.”
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims recite additional limitations such “acquire a plurality of medical images along a time series, the plurality of medical images depicting an observation target region; and perform image recognition processing on the plurality of medical images to detect a state change of the observation target region.”. However, these limitations are not enough to qualify as “practical application” being recited in the claims along with the abstract idea since these limitations are merely invoked as a tool to perform instruction of abstract idea in a particular technological environment and/or are generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, and merely applying and abstract idea in a particular technological environment and merely limiting use of an abstract idea to a particular field or a technological environment do not provide practical application for an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05 (f) & (h)). The claims do not amount to "practical application" for the abstract idea because they neither (1) recite any improvements to another technology or technical field; (2) recite any improvements to the functioning of the computer itself; (3) apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; (4) effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; (5) provide other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claims recite additional limitations which are “image processing apparatus, processor, endoscope”. However, these limitations are not enough to qualify as “significantly more” being recited in the claims along with the abstract idea since these limitations are merely invoked as a tool to perform instruction of Abstract idea in a particular technological environment and/or are generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, and merely applying and abstract idea in a particular technological environment and merely limiting use of an abstract idea to a particular field or a technological environment do not provide significantly more to an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f) & (h)). The claims do not amount to "significantly more" than the abstract idea because they neither (1) recite any improvements to another technology or technical field; (2) recite any improvements to the functioning of the computer itself; (3) apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; (4) effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; (5) add a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine and conventional in the field; (6) add unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful application; nor (7) provide other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Therefore, since there are no limitations in the claims (1-15, 20) that transform the exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and looking at the limitations as a combination and as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually, claims (1-15, 20) are rejected under 35 USC § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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) (1-15, 20) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yamanashi et al. (hereinafter Yamanashi)(US Publication 2018/0218233 A1)
Re claim 1, Yamanashi discloses an image processing apparatus (See fig. 1; ¶ 38-39 where it teaches an endoscope system) comprising: a processor (See fig. 1: 3; ¶ 38-39, 47 where it teaches a video processor), the processor is configured to: acquire a plurality of medical images along a time series, the plurality of medical images depicting an observation target region (See fig. 1; ¶ 43, 49-50 where it teaches acquiring a time-sequentially images of a subject; extracting a region of interest.); and perform image recognition processing on the plurality of medical images to detect a state change of the observation target region. (See fig. 1; ¶ 51-52 where it teaches the distribution characteristic value calculation unit 34 extracts color component values of each of the analysis target region of the first image and the analysis target region of the second image extracted by the region extraction unit 33, and further, calculates respective distribution characteristic values of luminance values concerning the respective total values of the extracted color component values; the image analysis unit 35 calculates the degree of change between the distribution characteristic value (a first distribution characteristic value) concerning the analysis target region of the first image calculated by the distribution characteristic value calculation unit 34 and the distribution characteristic value (a second distribution characteristic value) concerning the analysis target region of the second image calculated by the distribution characteristic value calculation unit 34.)
Re claim 2, Yamanashi discloses wherein the state change includes a change in adhesive color, a change in mucosal state including mucosal structure, and/or a change in mucus adhesion state. (See ¶ 51-52, 115-117)
Re claim 3, Yamanashi discloses wherein the processor is configured to start the image recognition processing in response to a first condition being satisfied. (See fig. 1; ¶ 41, 43, 48-49)
Re claim 4, Yamanashi discloses wherein the first condition includes a condition in which an instruction to start the image recognition processing is given. (See fig. 1; ¶ 41, 43, 48-49)
Re claim 5, Yamanashi discloses wherein the first condition includes a condition in which a region of interest is included in the observation target region. (See fig. 1; ¶ 41, 43, 48-50)
Re claim 6, Yamanashi discloses wherein the first condition includes a condition in which a site corresponding to the observation target region is a site designated as an observation target. (See fig. 1; ¶ 41, 43, 48-50, 84)
Re claim 7, Yamanashi discloses wherein the processor is configured to end the image recognition processing in response to a second condition being satisfied. (See fig. 1, 4; ¶ 91-92)
Re claim 8, Yamanashi discloses wherein the processor is configured to delete first information that is information based on the image recognition processing, in response to the second condition being satisfied. (See fig. 1, 4; ¶ 90-92)
Re claim 9, Yamanashi discloses wherein the first information is held during a period from a start of the image recognition processing to an end of the image recognition processing, and the processor is configured to delete the first information in response to the end of the image recognition processing. (See fig. 1, 4; ¶ 84-92)
Re claim 10, Yamanashi discloses wherein in a case where the plurality of medical images are generated by an endoscope, the second condition includes a condition in which a tip portion of the endoscope has started moving or a condition in which a moving speed of the tip portion has increased. (See fig. 1, 4; ¶ 41-46, 84-92)
Re claim 11, Yamanashi discloses wherein the second condition includes a condition in which an instruction to end the image recognition processing is given. (See fig. 1, 4; ¶ 91-92)
Re claim 12, Yamanashi discloses wherein the second condition includes a condition in which a region of interest is not included in the observation target region. (See fig. 1, 3; ¶ 50, 66-81)
Re claim 13, Yamanashi discloses wherein in a case where the plurality of medical images are generated by an endoscope, the processor is configured to detect the state change based on an operation of the endoscope. (See fig. 1; ¶ 47-52)
Re claim 14, Yamanashi discloses wherein the processor is configured to: acquire region-of-interest information related to a region of interest included in the observation target region; and detect the state change on condition that the region-of-interest information is acquired. (See fig. 1; ¶ 47-52)
Re claim 15, Yamanashi discloses wherein the processor is configured to: acquire site information related to a site corresponding to the observation target region; and detect the state change on condition that the site information is acquired. (See fig. 1; ¶ 47-52, 66-81)
Re claim 20, Yamanashi discloses An endoscope comprising: the image processing apparatus according to claim 1 (See rejection in claim 1 above); and an endoscope main body to be inserted into a body including the observation target region. (See fig. 1; ¶ 41-52)
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.
Claim(s) (16-17) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamanashi et al (hereinafter Yamanashi)(US Publication 2018/0218233 A1) in view of Ebata. (US Publication 2018/0214005 A1)
Re claim 16, the reference of Yamanashi fails to teach wherein the processor is configured to derive lesion information related to a lesion in the observation target region, based on the state change.
However, Ebata does. (See fig. 1-3; ¶ 67-73, 104-117) In the same field of endeavors, the reference of Ebata discloses and fairly suggests wherein the processor is configured to derive lesion information related to a lesion in the observation target region, based on the state change. (Where it teaches the determination unit 85 determines (or classifies) the state of the mucous membrane of the observation target using the temporal change of the second blood vessel index value Di2 with respect to the first blood vessel index value Di1. The “state of the mucous membrane” of the observation target is a comprehensive status as the entire mucous membrane including blood vessels. For example, the “state of the mucous membrane” of the observation target is “normal”, “adenoma” (suspected of adenoma), “cancer” (suspected of cancer), and the like.)
Therefore, taking the combined teachings of Yamanashi & Ebata as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art to incorporate this feature into the system of Yamanashi, in the manner as claimed and as taught by Ebata, for the benefit of detecting a lesion.
Re claim 17, the combination of Yamanashi & Ebata discloses wherein the observation target region includes a region of interest, the state change includes a change in the region of interest, and the change in the region of interest is a change from a state in which mucus adheres to the region of interest to a state in which a non-neoplastic polyp appears in the region of interest. (In Ebata, see fig. 1-3; ¶ 67-73, 104-117)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims (18-19) 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ito (US 2020/0113425 A1) discloses a light source apparatus, endoscope system, and illumination control method.
Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LEON FLORES whose telephone number is (571)270-1201. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am - 6pm.
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, HENOK SHIFERAW can be reached at 571-272-4637. 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.
/LEON FLORES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2676 July 31, 2026
Prosecution Insights