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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on April 4, 2025, April 28, 2025 and September 3, 2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 6, 10, 12 and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 6, line 2, “high dimensional” should read “high-dimensional” to remain consistent with the rest of the claims
Similar issue in claim 20, line 5
Claim 10, line 2, “low dimensional” should read “low-dimensional”
Claim 12, line 2, “an identify” should read “an identity”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Invoked despite absence of “means”
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“synthesis module” in claim 14 (and further claims 15-21 for inheriting the module and not changing the interpretation)
“object combination module” in claim 14-15 and 20 (and further claims 15-21 for inheriting the module and not changing the interpretation)
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Based on the 35 USC 112(f) interpretation as noted above, corresponding 35 USC 112(b) and 35 USC 112(a) rejections were considered. Based on the specification, it was determined no corresponding 35 USC 112(b) and 35 USC 112(a) rejections were needed. See the chart below for the relevant PG Publication paragraphs as related to each module:
Unit
Element ID
Structure/algorithm
Synthesis module
Paragraph 0052, "an image details synthesis module 212 may be configured to determine what 3D objects or what areas within a 3D object should be emphasized in the 2D synthesized image 206."
Structure: paragraph 054, "In some embodiments, the image details synthesis module 212 may comprise several algorithms and/or heuristics that are programmed with rules to determine what parts of an object to emphasize/de-emphasize based on the object database 216."
Algorithm: see paragraphs 0052-0054
Object combination module
Paragraph 0050, "More particularly, an object combination module 210 may be configured to identify the various objects of the 3D object grid 120,"
Structure: paragraph 0050, "In one or more embodiments, data from the tomosynthesis stack 202 and the 3D object grid 120 are processed by one or more modules to produce the 2D synthesized image 206. More particularly, an object combination module 210 may be configured to identify the various objects of the 3D object grid 120" 210 is clearly noted as computer implemented as it is used to process data
Algorithm: see paragraphs 0050-0051 and 0055-0056
Double Patenting
Non-statutory
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 2 and 13 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 7 of U.S. Patent No. 11,983,799 (hereinafter US ‘799). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant application is more broad in scope than the US ‘799 patent.
Claim 2: Regarding claim 2, claim 2 compares to claim 7 of the US ‘799 patent as indicated below. As can be seen below, claim 2 of the current application si more broad in scope than claim 7 of the US ‘799 patent. Therefore, any patent granted on the current application would result in the unjustifiable timewise extension of the monopoly granted on claim 7 of the US ‘799 patent.
Instant Application - Claim 2
US '799 - Claim 7/6/1
Notes
A method for processing breast tissue image data,
1. A method for processing breast tissue image data, comprising:
Substantially the same
the breast tissue image data comprising a plurality of images collectively depicting a patient's breast tissue mass, the method comprising:
obtaining a set of image slices that collectively depict the patient's breast tissue;
Substantially the same
identifying at least one high-dimensional object in the high-dimensional grid, the at least one high-dimensional object having one or more high-dimensional features, the one or more high-dimensional features originating from at least two images of the plurality of images;
identifying an image pattern in two or more slices of the set of image slices;
Substantially the same
generating, using the breast tissue image data, a high-dimensional grid representing the patient's breast tissue mass;
generating a high-dimensional object grid depicting the image pattern from the two or more slices of the set of image slices;
Substantially the same
determining that the image pattern from the two or more slices of the set of image slices comprises one high-dimensional object having a high-dimensional feature; and
Instant application more broad
using the high-dimensional grid, performing a dimension reduction on the at least one high-dimensional object into a low-dimensional object such that the low-dimensional object includes a representation of the one or more high-dimensional features; and
generating, based on the high-dimensional object grid and the determining that the image pattern from the two or more slices comprises one high-dimensional object, a lower-dimensional format image of the high-dimensional object depicting the high-dimensional feature.
Substantially the same
displaying a low-dimensional synthesized image of the patient's breast tissue mass including the low-dimensional object.
Claim 6: The method of claim 1, wherein generating the lower-dimensional format image of the high-dimensional object comprises generating a synthesized two-dimensional image of the patient's breast tissue.
Claim 7: The method of claim 6, further comprising displaying the synthesized two-dimensional image.
Instant application more broad
Claim 13: Regarding claim 13, a similar rejection would apply being that claim 13 is written as a system which implements a similar method to that of claim 2 of the instant application. Furthermore, although claim 13 of the present invention is a system claim, and claim 7 of the patent is a method claim, a double patenting rejection between a method and system is appropriate when the claims of the method could obviously be caried out on the sysyem of the system claims.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-21 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the non-statutory double patenting rejections and correcting claim informalities as noted above
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the closest prior arts of record teach methods of methods of image data dimensionality reduction. However, none of them alone or in any combination teaches processing breast tissue image data to generate a high-dimensional grid, identifying an object having high-dimensional features originating from at least two images, performing dimension reduction down to a lower-dimension to display an image of the low-dimensional object.
The closest prior art being WO 2014/207080 (hereinafter Erhard) discloses, “A method and related apparatus (VS) for synthetic projection images, in particular synthetic 2D mammograms (S) formed from a 3D image volume T made up of slices (SL) (abstract).”
However, Erhard fails to disclose processing breast tissue image data to generate a high-dimensional grid, identifying an object having high-dimensional features originating from at least two images, performing dimension reduction down to a lower-dimension to display an image of the low-dimensional object.
Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Courtney J. Windsor whose telephone number is (571)272-3956. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 - 4:00.
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, John Villecco can be reached at 571-272-7319. 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.
/COURTNEY JOAN NELSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2661
Prosecution Insights