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
The United States Patent & Trademark Office appreciates the application that is submitted by the inventor/assignee. The United States Patent & Trademark Office reviewed the following application and has made the following comments below.
Priority
This application claims benefit of foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) of 10-2023-0195700, filed in Republic of Korea on 12/28/2023.
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 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. When reviewing independent claim 1, and based upon consideration of all of the relevant factors with respect to the claim as a whole, claim(s) 1-8 are held to claim an abstract idea without reciting elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea and is/are therefore rejected as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101. The Examiner will analyze Claim 1, and similar rationale applies to independent Claim/s 8. The rationale, under MPEP § 2106, for this finding is explained below:
The claimed invention (1) must be directed to one of the four statutory categories, and (2) must not be wholly directed to subject matter encompassing a judicially recognized exception, as defined below. The following two step analysis is used to evaluate these criteria.
Step 1: Is the claim directed to one of the four patent-eligible subject matter categories: process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
When examining the claim under 35 U.S.C. 101, the Examiner interprets that the claims is related to a process since the claim is directed to a method for feeding back medical image quality.
Step 2a, Prong 1: Does the claim wholly embrace a judicially recognized exception, which includes laws of nature, physical phenomena, and abstract ideas, or is it a particular practical application of a judicial exception?
The Examiner interprets that the judicial exception applies since Claim 1 limitation of receiving image data, extracting a region of interest to be diagnosed, and evaluating a quality region of interest, and generating a feedback information are directed to an abstract ideas. The claim is related to mental process by doctor performing the following function their mind to determine if a new x-ray is need. If the claim recites a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea enumerated in MPEP § 2106.04(a), a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon), the claim requires further analysis in Prong Two.
Step 2a, Prong 2: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
The Examiner interprets that Claim 1 limitation does not provide additional elements or combination of additional elements to a practical application since the claims are linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h). See, MPEP §2106.04(d), In short, first the specification should be evaluated to determine if the disclosure provides sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. The specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, but it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. Conversely, if the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but in a conclusory manner (i.e., a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art), the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology. Here, the Examiner interprets that specification does not provide the improvement and does not explicitly set forth an improvement but must make conclusory manner, (i.e., a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art). Thus, the Exmainer finds there is no judicial exception.
Step 2b: If a judicial exception into a practical application is not recited in the claim, the Examiner must interpret if the claim recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The Examiner interprets that the Claims do not amount to significantly more since the Claim is simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, as discussed in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(d));
Furthermore, the generic computer components of the memory recited as performing generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities amount to no more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system.
Claims 2-7 are depending on the independent claim/s include all the limitation of the independent claim. The Examiner finds that Claims 2-7 does not states significantly more since the claim only recites extra steps of determining if the image quality is need taken again.
Thus, Claims 1-8 recite the same abstract idea and therefore are not drawn to the eligible subject matter as they are directed to the abstract idea without significantly more.
Therefore, the Examiner interprets that the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
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.
Or
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Foos et al (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2012/0087474, hereafter referred to as Foos).
In regards to Claim 1. Foos teaches A method for feeding back medical image quality (paragraph 32, Foos teaches xray machine for capturing images.), wherein the method is performed by at least one processor, comprising:
receiving X-ray image data (paragraph 32, Foos teaches xray machine for capturing images.);
extracting a region of interest to be diagnosed from the image data (paragraph 51, Foos teaches ROI can be determined within the image, furthermore the Examiner interprets that the ROI interest can be the any part of image or the entire image.);
PNG
media_image1.png
467
603
media_image1.png
Greyscale
evaluating a quality of the region of interest depending on a predetermined criterion (Figure 4b item 220, Foos teaches the image data is determined to meet a standard, paragraph 40.); and
generating feedback information including whether to request rephotographing based on a result of the quality evaluation (Figure 4b item 220, Foos teaches the adjustment are done to the imaging device to recapture the images, paragraph 40.).
In regards to Claim 2, Foos teaches outputting the feedback information in an audiovisual manner, wherein the feedback information includes a reason for not meeting the quality criterion (paragraph 40, Foos teaches using a message for display for helping adjust settings for changes.).
In regards to Claim 3, Foos teaches wherein the reason for not meeting the quality standard includes at least one of:
PNG
media_image1.png
467
603
media_image1.png
Greyscale
the criterion for evaluating a structure arrangement being met and the criterion for evaluating an interior of a structure being met (Figure 4B, item 220, Foos teaches if the image quality is ok, it is use for forming a composite image; the Examiner interprets that this read on the claim, since the claim is silent as to what happens next to the image processing, the claim does not state exactly what happens so the Examiner can interpret that if the quality of the image ok, that reads on the “being met and the criterion for evaluation”).
In regards to Claim 8, Foos teaches a system for feeding back medical image quality (paragraph 32, Foos teaches xray machine for capturing images.) comprising:
a communicator configured to receive X-ray image data (paragraph 32, Foos teaches xray machine for capturing images.); and
a processor configured to:
extract a region of interest to be diagnosed from the image data (paragraph 51, Foos teaches ROI can be determined within the image, furthermore the Examiner interprets that the ROI interest can be the any part of image or the entire image.),
PNG
media_image1.png
467
603
media_image1.png
Greyscale
evaluate a quality of the region of interest depending on a predetermined criterion (Figure 4b item 220, Foos teaches the image data is determined to meet a standard, paragraph 40.), and
generate feedback information including whether to request rephotographing based on a result of the quality evaluation (Figure 4b item 220, Foos teaches the adjustment are done to the imaging device to recapture the images, paragraph 40.).
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 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(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 4 & 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Foos et al (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2012/0087474, hereafter referred to as Foos) in view of Wang et al (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2021/0212651, hereafter referred to Wang).
Regarding Claim 4, Foos teaches the following an x-ray imaging apparatus to review the quality of the image taken for a patient.
Foos does not explicitly disclose the following an evaluation of coverage range, an evaluation of bilateral symmetry, and an evaluation of scapular position.
Wang is in the same field of art of computer aided diagnosis system. Further, Wang teaches an evaluation of coverage range, an evaluation of bilateral symmetry, and an evaluation of scapular position (paragraph 66, paragraph 67, Wang teaches analyzing the images for bilateral symmetry.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Foos by incorporating the analysis of the bilateral symmetry of image features that is taught by Wang, to make the invention that capture xrays images and determines the quality of the image using bilateral symmetry as quality indicator; thus, one of ordinary skilled in the art would be motivated to combine the references since as a result, computer-aided diagnosis (CAD) of fractures has very high demands to save time and assist physicians to detect (otherwise) missed fractures more accurately and reliably (paragraph 3, Wang).
Thus, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
In regards to Claim 5, Foos in view of Wang discloses an evaluation of a degree of inhalation, an evaluation of a penetration state and a resolution, and an evaluation of a presence or absence of artificial shadings (paragraph 39, Foos teaches that the evaluation of a penetration state and resolution is determined by the technician assessing the overall build of the patient and fats such as relative thickness of the patient as a guide.).
Claims 6 & 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Foos et al (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2012/0087474, hereafter referred to as Foos) in view of Cheng et al (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2021/0312629, hereafter referred to as Cheng).
Regarding Claim 6, Foos teaches the following an x-ray imaging apparatus to review the quality of the image taken for a patient.
Foos does not explicitly disclose the following setting a criterion of the quality evaluation; and
determining learning data depending on the quality evaluation criterion and performing machine learning, wherein the predetermined criterion is the quality evaluation criterion, wherein the quality evaluation is output by the machine-learned result,
wherein the region of interest is a lung area, and
wherien the quality evaluation includes at least one of:
an evaluation of a structure arrangement and an evaluation of an interior of a structure.
Cheng is in the same field of art of capturing image of the patient and using x-ray data. Further, Cheng teaches setting a criterion of the quality evaluation (paragraph 78, Cheng teaches determining if image quality is poor.); and
determining learning data depending on the quality evaluation criterion and performing machine learning (paragraph 108, Cheng teaches determining if the lung image is segmented is allow the subject to breath-hold for quality of image.),
PNG
media_image2.png
800
544
media_image2.png
Greyscale
wherein the predetermined criterion is the quality evaluation criterion, wherein the quality evaluation is output by the machine-learned result (paragraph 96, paragraph 97, Cheng teaches using machine learning model to determine if the lung region is captured by comparing segmentation regions.),
wherein the region of interest is a lung area (Figure 5, paragraph 96-paragraph 98, Cheng teaches image the lungs), and
wherien the quality evaluation includes at least one of:
an evaluation of a structure arrangement and an evaluation of an interior of a structure (Figure 5, paragraph 96-paragraph 98, Cheng teaches image the lungs structure inside the lungs).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Foos by incorporating the quality determining and using the data for improving lung region images that is taught by Cheng, to make the invention that captures lung images and provide quality output to determine if the images need to be taken again and verified by a user; thus, one of ordinary skilled in the art would be motivated to combine the references since as hospitals may need to perform a large number of imaging procedures every day and it is time-consuming to manually determine the number of ribs overlapping with the lung fields in each chest image, evaluating the quality of chest images according to relevant protocols becomes a difficult task, leading to poor imaging quality and low processing speed. No effective solution has been proposed thus far (paragraph 5, Cheng).
Thus, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding Claim 7, Foos teaches the following an x-ray imaging apparatus to review the quality of the image taken for a patient.
Foos does not explicitly disclose setting a criterion of the quality evaluation;
determining learning data depending on the quality evaluation criterion and performing machine learning, determining the X-ray image as an image to be transmitted to an expert and transmitting it to an expert terminal;
receiving expert feedback information from the expert terminal; and
determining the expert feedback information as additional learning data and performing machine learning,
wherein the quality evaluation is output by the machine-learned result.
Cheng is in the same field of art of capturing image of the patient and using x-ray data. Further, Cheng teaches setting a criterion of the quality evaluation (paragraph 78, Cheng teaches determining if image quality is poor.);
determining learning data depending on the quality evaluation criterion and performing machine learning (paragraph 108, Cheng teaches determining if the lung image is segmented is allow the subject to breath-hold for quality of image.).
PNG
media_image2.png
800
544
media_image2.png
Greyscale
determining the X-ray image as an image to be transmitted to an expert and transmitting it to an expert terminal (paragraph 92, Cheng teaches medical personnel may determine subject should be rescanned);
receiving expert feedback information from the expert terminal (paragraph 92, Cheng teaches medical personnel may determine subject should be rescanned); and
determining the expert feedback information as additional learning data and performing machine learning (paragraph 92, paragraph 93, Cheng using the evalution information for the segmentation model for the user can review the images.),
wherein the quality evaluation is output by the machine-learned result (paragraph 92, paragraph 93, Cheng teaches evalution of the image and then stores the image.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Foos by incorporating the quality determining and using the data for improving lung region images that is taught by Cheng, to make the invention that captures lung images and provide quality output to determine if the images need to be taken again and verified by a user; thus, one of ordinary skilled in the art would be motivated to combine the references since as hospitals may need to perform a large number of imaging procedures every day and it is time-consuming to manually determine the number of ribs overlapping with the lung fields in each chest image, evaluating the quality of chest images according to relevant protocols becomes a difficult task, leading to poor imaging quality and low processing speed. No effective solution has been proposed thus far (paragraph 5, Cheng).
Thus, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Pertinent Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure.
Langoju et al U.S. Patent Publication No. 2025/0095143.
Chen et al U.S. Patent Publication No. 2022/0198214.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ONEAL R MISTRY whose telephone number is (313)446-4912. The examiner can normally be reached on 9am-5pm.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ONEAL R MISTRY/
Examiner, Art Unit 2665
Prosecution Insights