()Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. It would be of great assistance to the office if all incoming papers pertaining to a filed application carried the following items:
i. Application number (checked for accuracy, including series code and serial no.).
ii. Group art unit number (copied from most recent Office communication).
iii. Filing date.
iv. Name of the examiner who prepared the most recent Office action.
v. Title of invention.
vi. Confirmation number (See MPEP § 503).
3. The Examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record within the body of this action for the convenience of the Applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages, paragraph and figures may apply. Applicant, in preparing the response, should consider fully the entire reference as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
4. Claim interpretation: When multiple limitations are connected with “OR”, one of the limitations does have any patentable weight since both of the limitations are optional.
Double Patenting
5. The non-statutory 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 non-statutory obviousness-type 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); and 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 non-provisional rejection or provisional rejection based on a non-statutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
a. Claims 14, 16-23 of instant application are provisionally rejected on the ground non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-14 of application No. 17/591386 (US Pat. :12232689). Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentable distinct from each other because both the claims of the instant application and the claims of the co-pending application are almost the same in scope. Omission of an element and its function in a combination is an obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform the same function as before. In re KARLSON (CCPA) 136 USPQ 184 (1963).
b. Parent application also includes additional limitations. As a result, the instant application claims are generic to the species of invention covered by the respective patent claims. As such, the instant application claims are anticipated by the patent claims and are therefore not patentable distinct therefrom. (See Eli Lilly and Co. v. Barr Laboratories Inc., 58 USPQ2D 1869, “a later genus claim limitation is anticipated by, and therefore not patentable distinct from, an earlier claim”, In re Goodman, 29 USPQ2d 2010, “Thus, the generic invention is ‘anticipated’ by the species of the patented invention” and the instant “application claims are generic to species of invention covered by the patent claim, and since without terminal disclaimer, extant species claims preclude issuance of generic application claims”)
c. An omission of an element and its function in a combination is an obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform the same function as before. In re KARLSON(CCPA) 136 USPQ 184 (1963).
Claims are not identical, however, the scope of the invention are the same.
Instant Application
Application (17/591386)
Claim 1:
A medical image processing apparatus comprising: one or more processors configured to process:
acquiring that acquires a medical image;
recognizing that performs recognition of a region of interest in the acquired medical image;
switching that switches from a second state, which does not report position information of the region of interest as a result of the recognition, to a first state,
which reports the position information of the region of interest as a result of the recognition, in response to satisfying a predetermined condition;
notifying that provides a second notification indicating the switching from the second state to the first state in a second style;
and switching that switches from the first state to the second state, in response to elapse of a determined time.
Claim 1:
A medical image processing apparatus comprising: one or more processors configured to process:
acquiring that acquires a medical image; recognizing that performs recognition of a region of interest in the acquired medical image;
reporting that performs reporting of position information of the region of interest as a result of the recognition in a first state which is capable of performing the reporting
and is a state in response to satisfying a predetermined condition;
setting that sets determined time in response to user input; switching that switches from the first state to a second state of not performing the reporting, in response to elapsing the determined time;
and notifying that provides a first notification indicating the switching from the first state to the second state in a first style.
All other dependents and conflicting claims are either identical or not identical, they are not patentable distinct from each other because both the claims of the instant application and the claims of the parent application are almost the same in scope.
Claim Rejection- 35 USC § 103
6. 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 of this title, 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 14-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwaki (Pub No. 2020/0058124) and further in view of Gocho (Pub No. WO 2019/116592).
Regarding claim 14, Iwaki discloses a medical image processing apparatus (Fig. 1 Endoscopic image processing device & Para. 14) comprising: one or more processors configured to process: acquiring that acquires a medical image (Para. 19: Endoscopic imaging); recognizing that performs recognition of a region of interest in the acquired medical image (Para. 20-21: Region of interest detection from the images); switching that switches from a second state, which does not report position information of the region of interest as a result of the recognition, to a first state (Para. 42: At a state detection of the lesion candidate area L1 in the observation image G1 continues stops. a timing when detection of the lesion candidate area L1 by the region of interest detecting portion 34 discontinues, the display controlling portion 36 stops measurement of the continuous detection time period TL- display controlling portion stops-switching display), which reports the position information of the region of interest as a result of the recognition, in response to satisfying a predetermined condition (Para. 3-4: satisfying a predetermined condition-predetermine threshold & Para. 29-31 & 61-63: Position information of the region of interest for predeterminate time periods, display images for reporting); and switching that switches from the first state to the second state, in response to elapse of a determined time (Para. 32-34 & 42-43: switching display from one state to another after a certain time periods).
Iwaki is silent regarding, notifying that provides a second notification indicating the switching from the second state to the first state in a second style.
In a similar field of endeavor, Gocho discloses notifying that provides a second notification indicating the switching from the second state to the first state in a second style (Page. 14-Para. 1: Switching image display from one style to another- magnify the region of interest in the display image of the endoscope 12 displayed on the monitor 18 & Notifying operator).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the image adjusting system of an endoscope device of Gocho's disclosure with medical image processing system, as taught by Iwaki. Doing so would have resulted in effectively analysis medical image to determine lesions area from medical image and adjusting display of the medical images for viewer convenience.
Regarding claim 15, Iwaki is silent regarding, the one or more processors are configured to process, in a case where the switching that switches from the first state to the second state, in response to elapsing the determined time, notifying that provides a first notification indicating the switching from the first state to the second state in a first style.
In a similar field of endeavor, Gocho discloses the one or more processors are configured to process, in a case where the switching that switches from the first state to the second state, in response to elapsing the determined time, notifying that provides a first notification indicating the switching from the first state to the second state in a first style (Page. 14-Para. 1: Switching image display in many different style. Switching image display from one style to another- magnify the region of interest/ birds eye view image display in the display image of the endoscope 12 displayed on the monitor 18 & Notifying operator).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the different image display system to display many different image display option for user to analyze images effectively.
Regarding claim 16, Iwaki discloses the determined time is time from the recognizing the region of interest (Para. 52).
Regarding claim 17, Iwaki discloses the first style uses at least one of an audio signal, a light signal or vibration (Para. 34: Beep sound or Vibration).
Regarding claim 18, Iwaki discloses the 2nd style uses at least one of an audio signal, a light signal or vibration (Para. 34: Beep sound or Vibration).
Regarding claim 19, Iwaki continue to discloses the recognizing performs the recognition of the region of interest without image processing on the medical image (Abstract: Region of interest in the image).
Regarding claim 20, Iwaki continue to discloses the setting includes a reporting setting whether the reporting is to be performed; and the predetermined condition is ON setting of the reporting setting (Para. 19-20: predetermined setting condition & Abstract).
Regarding claim 21, Iwaki continue to discloses wherein the position information is a frame (Para. 28: position information).
Regarding claim 22, Iwaki continue to discloses the acquiring acquires medical images including the medical image, the medical images being chronological images (Para. 32: Video images); the recognizing performs the recognition for the respective medical images (Para. 21: Detect a lesion candidate area L from video image); and the reporting performs the reporting of the position information for the respective medical images (Para. 21 & 27: position information of the lesion).
Regarding claim 23, Iwaki continue the predetermined condition is an instruction to execute image processing or designating a condition necessary for execution.
Another Prior Art
7. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. Another prior art, Miyazawa (US 2016/0133012) discloses a medical image obtained by imaging of an object based on information concerning the imaging of the object, a period obtaining unit that obtains information indicating a period that has elapsed between a reference time concerning the specific information and a time of imaging of the medical image, and a processing unit with the medical image the information indicating the period as the specific information in a case where the determination unit determines that the specific information is to be associated with the medical image. The display unit output interface configured to display a user interface of control software of the imaging. Any interface a monitor of imaging apparatus used as the display unit as long as the information can be displayed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MD K TALUKDER whose telephone number is (571)270-3222. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thur from 10 am to 6 pm.
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, Wesley Kim can be reached on 571-272-7867. 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.
/MD K TALUKDER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2648
