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 .
Status of claims: 1-2, 4-8, 11, 19-22 are pending below. Claims 3, 9-10 and 12-18 are cancelled.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/12/2024 and 8/11/2025 was filed and considered. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-2, 4-8, 11, 19-22 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-13 of U.S. Patent No. 12,205,275. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the invention defined by the claims of the instant application would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in view of the claims of the U.S. Patent No. 12,205,275. Independent claims 1, 11, 19-22 of the application 18/978118 are anticipated by independent claims 1 and 9-13 U.S. Patent No. 12,205,275. Dependent claims 2 and 4-8 of application 18/978118 are follow likeliness mapping to dependent claims of 2-8 of U.S. Patent No. 12,205,275.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4-8, 11, 19-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HANEDA et al (US 2019/0197359) in view of Kumar et al (US 2021/0027883).
Claim 1, similar claims 11, 19-20 and 21-22:
HANEDA et al (US 2019/0197359) teaches the following subject matter:
An information processing device comprising:
at least one memory storing a program (0041 detail use of processor and memory); and
at least one processor which, by executing the program, causes the information processing apparatus to perform (0041 detail use of CPU (processor) with memory for storage):
acquiring an image group including a plurality of medical images obtained by imaging a subject under different imaging conditions[[,]] (0007 detail retrieves medial images with shooting conditions (different imaging condition) of an imaging device, where 0125 detail parameters of the shooting conditions; 0008-0009 also detail; 0051 detail finding models to enable identification and reference model of lesions);
comparing a plurality of imaging conditions of the plurality of medical images included in the image group with a plurality of types of input conditions of a plurality of types of inference models for performing inferencing regarding a lesion (figures 1-4 and paragraph 0021 detail inferencing services (inference models) analysis on acquired images; 0007 detail select an inference model from among plurality of inference models that most appropriate and optimal base on shooting conditions (imaging conditions));
[[select]] selecting at least one inference model from [[a]] the plurality of types of inference models on the basis of a result of the comparing[[, and]] (0199 detail different imaging condition such as images from single lens reflex camera, mirrorless camera, compact digital camera, video camera, images from mobile phone, smartphone, PC, tablet, gaming console, medical camera, microscope, a camera for mounting on a vehicle, a surveillance camera, which are all directly or indirectly access (combine to one source) from an external image database, which is detail in figure 1A part 21 External image DB (database); 0007 detail select an inference model from among plurality of inference models that most appropriate and optimal base on shooting conditions (imaging conditions); 0125 detail parameters of the shooting conditions);
HANEDA et al teaches all grouping/combing the picture to one such as an external database as taught above, but the following is taught by Kumar et al (US 2021/0027883):
selecting at least one medical image corresponding to an input condition of the selected at least one inference model; and performing inferencing regarding the lesion on the selected at least one medical image by using the selected at least one inference model model (figure 5 and 0063 detail acquiring same or similar images by filtering (image grouping) for patients having same or similar suspected condition or anatomical feature; 0050-0051 detail where the feature or condition to be presence of tumor (lesion) using workflow inference model 320; 0177 detail use of inference model to detect existence of tumor or symptoms of tumors from medical shooting device (imaging device) that is related to health).
HANEDA et al and Kumar et al are both in the field of image analysis, especially the use of inference model on medical imaging such that the combine outcome is predictable.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date to modify HANEDA et al by Kumar et al regarding the use of inference model with image grouping accuracy of the findings may be increased for patient with similar conditions or imaged anatomical features as disclosed by Kumar et al in 0063.
Regarding claim 11, HANEDA et al address devices in paragraph 0002 and figure 1A and 0029.
Regarding claim 19, HANEDA et al address method in figures 2-3 with flowchart.
Regarding claim 20, HANEDA et al address non-transitory computer readable medium in paragraph 0196.
Regarding claim 21, HANEDA et al address method in figures 2-3 with flowchart.
Regarding claim 22, HANEDA et al address non-transitory computer readable medium in paragraph 0196.
Claim 2:
HANEDA et al teaches:
The information processing device according to The information processing device according to wherein [[the]] at least one of the plurality of types of input conditions corresponds to a plurality of types of the different imaging conditions (0007 detail select an inference model from among plurality of inference models that most appropriate and optimal (correlating as well) base on shooting conditions (imaging conditions); 0125 detail parameters of the shooting conditions).
Claim 4:
HANEDA et al teaches:
The information processing device according to The information processing device according to wherein the at least one processor causes the information processing apparatus to perform selecting an inference model, of which an order of priority is highest, in accordance with a predetermined standard (0055 detail inference model with range of image data regarding evaluation, high and low, with specified threshold values (predetermined standards)).
Claim 5:
HANEDA et al teaches:
The information processing device according to claim [[3]] 4, wherein the predetermined standard is an inference precision of the inference model (0055 detail inference model with range of image data regarding evaluation, high and low, with specified (precision) threshold values (predetermined standards)).
Claim 6:
HANEDA et al teaches:
The information processing device according to claim [[3]] 4, wherein the at least one processor causes the information processing apparatus to perform the inferencing using images of imaging conditions matching the input conditions of the inference model of which the order of priority is highest, and the inference model of which the order of priority is highest (above detail inference of images with shooting conditions, with high and low, with specificized values; similar to claim 4).
Claim 7:
HANEDA et al teaches:
The information processing device according to The information processing device according to wherein the at least one processor causes the information processing apparatus to select perform selecting a plurality of inference models corresponding to the plurality of imaging conditions, and the at least one processor causes the information processing apparatus to perform the inferencing on each of the images of the image group by using the plurality of inference models selected (0007 detail select an inference model from among plurality of inference models that most appropriate and optimal base on shooting conditions (imaging conditions); 0125 detail parameters of the shooting conditions).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HANEDA et al (US 2019/0197359) and Kumar et al (US 2021/0027883) in further view of Lyman et al (US 2020/0160965).
Claim 8:
HANEDA et al and Kumar et al teaches the subject matter above, but not the following which is taught by Lyman et al:
The information processing device according to claim 1, wherein the plurality of imaging conditions include at least T1 weighting, T2 weighting, and diffusion weighting (0058 detail particular setting for imaging modality regarding MRI scan corresponding to T1 weight, T2 weight and diffusion, where 0086 detail such medical scan for inference function).
HANEDA et al and Kumar et al and Lyman et al are in the field of image analysis, especially consideration of inference model relating to imaging modality such that the combine outcome is predictable.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date to modify HANEDA et al and Kumar et al by Lyman et al such consideration of model parameter can be updated to improve existing inference functions to produce new model parameters for new inference functions as disclosed by Lyman et al in 0147.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
FUKUYA et al (US 2019/0253615) teaches IMAGING DEVICE, INFORMATION TERMINAL, CONTROL METHOD FOR IMAGING DEVICE, AND CONTROL METHOD FOR INFORMATION TERMINAL - 0084-0086, especially 0085 teaches selected inference model use with target value imaging (specified imaging condition) provide to imaging device to facilitate guidance and control for user needs; 0187 teaches such imaging is provided on medical imaging as well.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TSUNG-YIN TSAI whose telephone number is (571)270-1671. The examiner can normally be reached 7am-4pm.
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, Bhavesh Mehta can be reached at (571) 272-7453. 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.
/TSUNG YIN TSAI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2656
