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
The present application claims benefit of foreign application JP 2024-006078 filed on January 18, 2024. While the certified copy (WIPO) is received, the translation is not on file. No translation is required at this time unless the status of the case changes.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on January 17, 2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “detect a reason for a determination to be inappropriate” is grammatically awkward and appears to overlook identifying what is determined to be inappropriate. In view of the preceding claim language, it appears that the phrase is intended to refer to detecting a reason that the analysis result is determined to be inappropriate. 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.
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: “a communicator that acquires from an image-capturing apparatus” and “analyze the radiographic image before transmission to the medical image management system by the communicator” in claim 1. See 112a and 112b rejection below.
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 1, the claim recites the limitations “a communicator that acquires from an image-capturing apparatus a radiographic image captured by irradiating a subject with radiation” and “analyze the radiographic image before transmission to the medical image management system by the communicator.” The application in ¶ [0043] recites “The communicator 25 transmits and receives data to and from the radiographic image capturing
apparatus 10, the radiographic image analysis apparatus 30, the RIS, and the like” and recites in ¶ [0064] “The communicator 35 transmits and receives data to and from the radiography control apparatus 20, the image management apparatus 40, and the like.” The application also states the communicator 25 (as seen in FIG. 3) is part of the functional configuration of the radiography control apparatus 20, and the components of the radiography control apparatus 20 are connect to each other via a bus 26 (¶ [0036]). The application further states the communicator 35 (as seen in FIG. 4) is also part of the functional configuration of the radiography image analysis apparatus 30, and the components of the radiography image analysis apparatus 30 are connect to each other via a bus 36 (¶ [0046]). A person of ordinary skill in the art would know a bus can connect and communicate to various devices, such as a wireless transceiver, ethernet controller/interface, wireless network adapter, I/O interface/controller, etc. However, the specification fails to identify what type of material, component, structure, or the like, corresponds to a “communicator” found in the radiography control apparatus 20 and/or radiography image analysis apparatus 30. Thus, the communicator that acquires from an image-capturing apparatus a radiographic image and transmits the radiographic image to the medical image management system, as claimed, is not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 2-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) by virtue of dependency of claim 1.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, the claim limitations “a communicator that acquires from an image-capturing apparatus a radiographic image captured by irradiating a subject with radiation” and “analyze the radiographic image before transmission to the medical image management system by the communicator” invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification only states the communicator transmits and receives data to and from various apparatuses and that it is part of the functional configurations of both the radiography control apparatus and the radiography image analysis apparatus that make up the radiographic image processing system (see ¶ [0036], ¶ [0043], ¶ [0046], and ¶ [0064]). Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Claim 1 also recites “determine whether an analysis result analyzed is appropriate” on line 9 and “when it is determined that the analysis result determine is appropriate” on line 11. These limitations create uncertainty over what exactly is being “analyzed” and “determined” due to the grammatical structure of the limitations. The uncertainty of the claim renders the claim’s scope indefinite. In order to overcome the 112(b) rejection, Applicant is expected to amend the respective limitations to read “determine whether an analysis result
Claims 2-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for being dependent on indefinite claim 1.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 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 1, 3, and 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takagi (US 20220207766A1) in view of Kashyap et al. (US 20200258215 A1).
Regarding claim 1,
Takagi teaches: A radiographic image analysis apparatus (Takagi teaches a “dynamic image analysis device” (Abstract; ¶ [002]; ¶ [0007]), and teaches that dynamic imaging obtains images by “repeatedly emitting pulsed X-rays or other radiation to the subject” (¶ [0026]), and the system performs “radiography and radiographic image reading operation” (¶ [0033]). Thus, Takagi’s dynamic image analysis device analyzes images obtained by radiography using X-rays or other radiation and therefore corresponds to the claimed radiographic image analysis apparatus.) comprising:
a communicator that acquires from an image-capturing apparatus a radiographic image captured by irradiating a subject with radiation (Takagi teaches “The diagnostic console 3 is a device for acquiring dynamic images from the imaging console 2” (¶ [0040]), and a communication unit “controls data exchange with the devices connected to the communication network NT” (¶ [0047]), wherein the dynamic images are obtained by “repeatedly emitting pulsed X-rays or other radiation to the subject” (¶ [0026]).),
and one or more hardware processors (¶ [0041] “the diagnostic console 3 includes a controller 31 (hardware processor)”), wherein the one or more hardware processors: analyze the radiographic image (¶ [0018] “the diagnostic console 3 first performs the dynamic analysis (e.g., lung field area change rate)”)
determine whether an analysis result analyzed is appropriate (In Takagi’s second embodiment, Takagi teaches “after dynamic analysis is performed on the dynamic image in the diagnostic console 3, suitability judgement is performed on the dynamic image based on the result of the dynamic analysis” (¶ [0115]), and “The controller 31 judges whether there is a frame having the change rate of the lung field area that is greater than or equal to the threshold” (¶ [0120]), and when it does, the controller displays “that the analysis has failed and displays the reason for analysis failure” (¶ [0121]), otherwise “it is determined that the analysis of the lung field area change rate has been appropriately performed” (¶ [0124]). Thus, Takagi’s apparatus does not merely determine the quality or suitability of the underlying image, it also performs the dynamic analysis and then determines whether the resulting analysis has failed or has been appropriately performed, corresponding to determining whether an analysis result analyzed is appropriate, as claimed.),
and present information about the radiographic image that is a reason for a determination to be inappropriate, when it is determined that the analysis result determined is inappropriate (Takagi teaches “the controller 31 displays on the display 34 a judgement result screen 44 which displays that the analysis has failed and displays the reason for analysis failure,” such as “Abnormal lung field area change rate at frame 10” (¶ [0122]).).
Takagi does not explicitly disclose: the communicator transmits the radiographic image acquired to a medical image management system, or that the radiographic image is analyzed before transmission to a medical image management system.
In a related art, Kashyap teaches: “Methods and systems for determining a diagnostically unacceptable medical image” (Abstract), including a medical image management system with a medical image database, wherein “the server 205 may be a commercial picture archive and communication system (PACS) server” (¶ [0028]), and the “The medical image database 210 stores a plurality of medical images” (¶ [0034]), consistent with the PACs system exemplified as a medical image management system throughout the instant application’s specification. Kashyap further teaches performing image quality determination before storage, wherein “the system 200… is configured to automatically determine a diagnostically unacceptable medical image at the point of image acquisition (e.g., when the medical image is first captured using the medical imaging device 215). Based on whether the medical image is classified as diagnostically unacceptable or diagnostically acceptable, the technician may be prompted to save the medical image, such as to the medical image database 210, or recapture the medical image” (¶ [0067]). Kashyap further teaches that “the medical image database 210, and the medical imaging device 215 communicate over one or more wired or wireless communication networks 220” (¶ [0027]). Thus, Kashyap teaches the claimed ordering in which a newly acquired radiographic image is analyzed at the point of acquisition before the image is accepted and transmitted/stored in the networked medical image medical image management system.
Both inventions concern analysis of radiographic images before their use in the diagnostic workflow and aim to identify unsuitable radiographic images sufficiently early to avoid their subsequent use and necessary re-imaging (see Takagi ¶ [0108]-[0110], and Kashyap ¶ [0007] and ¶ [0036]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus taught by Takagi to transmit the acquired radiographic image to the PACS/medical image database (i.e. medical image management system) after performing the image analysis, as taught by Kashyap, thereby providing Takagi’s determination of whether the analysis result is appropriate before the radiographic image is transmitted to the medical image management system, consistent with Kashyap’s teaching of evaluating acquired medical images at the point of acquisition before storage in order to reduce subsequent recapture and associated waste and inefficiency (see Kashyap ¶ [0036], ¶ [0061]-[0062], ¶ [0073]).
Regarding claim 3,
Takagi and Kashyap teach the radiographic image analysis apparatus according to claim 1.
Takagi further teaches: wherein the radiographic image is a dynamic image (Abstract “acquires a dynamic image obtained from dynamic imaging by radiation; and performs a suitability judgement as to whether the dynamic image is suitable or unsuitable for a dynamic analysis based on the dynamic image or an analysis result obtained by analyzing the dynamic image”; ¶ [0026] “Dynamic imaging refers to obtaining a plurality of images indicating the dynamic state of a subject by repeatedly emitting pulsed X-rays or other radiation to the subject… A series of images obtained by dynamic imaging is referred to as a dynamic image.”), and wherein the information is at least one of a specific frame making up the radiographic image, a specific region in the radiographic image, and a specific position in the radiographic image (Takagi’s explains “Each of the plurality of images constituting the dynamic image is referred to as a frame image. In the following embodiments, a case where dynamic imaging of a chest is performed by pulse irradiation will be described as an example” (¶ [0026]), and then in the second embodiment, Takagi presents a reason for the failed analysis, “Abnormal lung field area change rate at frame 10,” thereby identifying a specific frame of the dynamic radiographic image responsible for the inappropriate analysis result, corresponding to the claimed wherein the information is at least one of a specific frame making up the radiographic image.).
Regarding claim 5,
Takagi and Kashyap teach the radiographic image analysis apparatus according to claim 1.
Takagi further teaches: wherein the one or more hardware processors include a plurality of analysis modes (Takagi teaches the apparatus includes one or more hardware processors for performing the analysis operations, as previously detailed in claim 1’s rejection and ¶ [0041] of Takagi. Takagi further teaches a plurality of analysis modes, including “ventilation analysis, blood flow analysis, maximum lung field area, lung field area change rate, diaphragmatic movement amount, lung field movement analysis” (¶ [0061]).)
and at least one determination item corresponding to each of the plurality of analysis modes (Takagi teaches the controller determines the type of dynamic analysis and determines the criteria for the feature amounts related to the dynamic analysis (¶ [0061]; ¶ [0065]), and “ the storage 32 stores the criteria of relevant feature amounts for each type of dynamic analysis” (¶ [0066]) and provides different determination criteria for different modes, such as for blood flow analysis “Diaphragmatic movement amount≤5 mm [and] Body movement≤10 mm” (¶ [0066]; see ventilation analysis criteria in ¶ [0068] and other various mode-specific criteria for maximum lung field area change rate, diaphragm movement, and lung field movement throughout ¶ [0067]-[0071]). Thus, Takagi’s teaching of analysis mode-specific criteria reasonably corresponds to the claimed determination item corresponding to each of the plurality of analysis modes.
and detect a reason for a determination to be inappropriate based on the determination item (Takagi teaches “the controller 31 determines whether there is a feature amount that does not meet the criterion” (¶ [0077]), and if “it is determined that there is a feature amount that does not meet the criterion… the controller 31 displays… the reason why the dynamic analysis is not available” (¶ [0078]), such as “diaphragmatic movement amount: 8 mm (NG),” in the case of blood flow analysis not being available (i.e. inappropriate) (¶ [0081]).).
Regarding claim 6,
Takagi teaches: A non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing a radiographic image analysis program for causing a computer provided in a radiographic image analysis apparatus (¶ [0010] “a recording medium reflecting one aspect of the present invention is a non-transitory recording medium storing a computer readable program causing a computer to perform: acquiring that is acquiring a dynamic image obtained from dynamic imaging by radiation; outputting that is outputting unsuitability information when the dynamic image is unsuitable for a dynamic analysis; and controlling that is controlling not to display, on a display, an analysis image obtained by analyzing a dynamic state of the dynamic image that is judged to be unsuitable.”; Takagi’s teaching of a dynamic image analysis device, corresponding to the claimed radiographic image apparatus, is further detailed with respect to claim 1. For brevity, please refer back to claim 1’s 103 rejection for greater detail of Takagi’s teaching of a dynamic image analysis device (i.e. radiographic image apparatus), which according to ¶ [0010] also includes a non-transitory recording medium storing a computer readable program causing a computer to perform the subsequent radiographic image analysis operations.).
The remaining limitations of claim 6 mirror the scope of the limitations found in lines 2-10 of claim 1 and taught by Takagi and Kashyap, with the exception that claim 6 does not mention a “communicator” and/or processors performing the operations. For brevity, please refer to Takagi and Kashyap’s respective teachings in claim 1. Their teachings and motivation to combine are applicable for claim 6. Further, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the radiographic image analysis taught by Takagi and Kashyap (shown in claim 1) as a computer program stored on a non-transitory recording medium, as further taught by Takagi, in the radiographic image analysis apparatus taught by Takagi and Kashyap (seen in claim 1) because doing so would have provided a known and conventional means for storing and executing instructions for causing the radiographic image analysis apparatus to perform the disclosed analysis operations, with predictable results.
Claims 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takagi (US 20220207766A1) in view of Kashyap et al. (US 20200258215 A1), and in further view of Greathouse (US 20060074306 A1).
Regarding claim 2,
Takagi and Kashyap teach the radiographic image analysis apparatus according to claim 1, including one or more hardware processors.
Takagi and Kashyap collectively teach: (Takagi and Kashyap fail to explicitly teach editing the radiographic image based on the information, rather Takagi identifies the reason for failed analysis the teaches re-imaging, not explicitly editing the existing image (Takagi ¶ [0123]) and Kashyap similarly teaches correcting acquisition conditions (i.e. parameters) and obtaining a new image (Kashyap ¶ [0068]-[0070]),
perform re-analysis of the radiographic image (Takagi teaches that the diagnostic console may first perform the analysis availability judgement processing and “then execute the analysis result judgement processing described in the second embodiment to the dynamic analysis which has been determined to be possible” (Takagi ¶ [0139]). Takagi’s second embodiment performs dynamic analysis (¶ [0118]), determines whether the analysis result satisfies a threshold (¶ [0120), and when appropriate, determines “that the analysis of the lung field area change rate has been appropriately performed” (¶ [0134]). Thus, Takagi teaches performing analysis of the radiographic image and determining whether a analysis result obtained by the re-analysis is appropriate.
Kashyap teaches “After prompting the technician to adjust the at least one parameter associated with the medical image and to recapture the medical image using the at least one adjusted parameter, the technician controls the medical imaging device 215 to recapture the medical image (e.g., capture a second medical image) using the at least one adjusted parameter… after the medical image is recaptured, the method 400 returns to block 410 to determine a classification of the recaptured medical image and this process can continue until diagnostically acceptable images are captured” (Kashyap ¶ [0070]).).
Thus, Takagi and Kashyap collectively teach performing re-analysis of a radiographic image under adjusted parameters, and determining whether the result of the subsequent analysis is appropriate.
However, Takagi and Kashyap fail to explicitly disclose editing the acquired radiographic imaged based on the information, and therefore do not explicitly disclose re-analyzing the edited radiographic image, and determining whether the resulting re-analysis result (based on that edited radiographic image) is appropriate, as claimed.
In a related art, Greathouse teaches: acquiring and processing dynamic image data using regions of interest (Abstract “acquiring and processing dynamic cardiac data, comprising a radiation detector for acquiring image data, identifying a region of interest by performing, for example, a weighted center of mass calculation, generating an activity versus time array corresponding to the region of interest, and analyzing the activity”) and, when automatically determined region results in interference from other structures, that “The operator may choose to adjust the region of interest,” and “If the operator has made changes to the region of interest, the SVC analysis is repeated” (¶ [0072]-[0073]). Greathouse further teaches “boundaries are used to define a new region” and using the new region “to generate a refined and encompassing time activity curve that is reanalyzed,” and that the region of interest may be “iteratively refine[d]” (¶ [0080]-[0081]). Thus, Greathouse teaches reactionary modification of an image region used for re-analysis based on information indicating a problem with the initially selected region. Greathouse’s teaching of adjustment of a region of interest reasonably corresponds to editing the radiographic image based on the information, consistent with the instant specification’s characterization of changing a region of interest in the dynamic image as an “editing process”.).
Takagi, Kashyap, and Greathouse all concern analysis of radiographic images in a diagnostic workflow and aim to identify or correct conditions that may negatively affect subsequent image analysis or diagnostic use, thereby improving the reliability and/or efficiency of the analysis and reducing unnecessary re-imaging or manual intervention (see Takagi ¶ [0108]-[0110], Kashyap ¶ [0007] and ¶ [0036], and Greathouse ¶ [0012] and ¶ [0058]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the radiographic image analysis apparatus taught by Takagi, previously modified by Kashyap, to incorporate the region of interest adjustment taught by Greathouse, thereby allowing an identified region causing an inappropriate analysis result to be corrected and the analysis repeated in order to improve the accuracy and reliability of the resulting radiographic image analysis.
Regarding claim 4,
Takagi and Kashyap teach the radiographic image analysis apparatus according to claim 3, including one or more hardware processors.
Takagi teaches: identifying a specific problematic frame of the dynamic image (¶ [0120] “The controller 31 judges whether there is a frame having the change rate of the lung field area that is greater than or equal to the threshold”; Upon analysis failure (change rate is above threshold), the reason for failure is displayed “Abnormal lung field area change rate at frame 10” (¶ [0122]); see ¶ [0118]-[0124]), but Takagi teaches a different response than being claimed, wherein the response is “making the user select whether to perform re-imaging of the dynamic image” (¶ [0123]), rather than performing at least one of deletion of the specific frame, change of the specific region, and change of the specific position in the radiographic image based on the information. While Takagi does teach when it is determined that none of the analysis is possible (i.e. analysis results are inappropriate) based on the criterion not being met, “the controller 31 may delete the dynamic image acquired from the imaging console” (¶ [0138]), this operation is not frame-specific, as claimed. Takagi also teaches performing analysis and determining whether an analysis result is appropriate, as detailed with respect to the 103 rejections for claims 1 and 2 (for brevity, refer to Takagi’s teachings found in the 103 rejections for claims 1 and 2)
Kashyap further teaches: correcting an identified problem followed by reacquisition using adjusted parameters and another acceptability determination (¶ [0068]-[0069]).).
However, Takagi and Kashyap fail to explicitly disclose: wherein the one or more hardware processors edit the radiographic image by performing at least one of deletion of the specific frame, change of the specific region, and change of the specific position in the radiographic image based on the information, perform re-analysis of the radiographic image edited, and determine whether a re-analysis result obtained by the re-analysis is appropriate.
In a related art, Greathouse teaches: changing a specific region of an image based on an identified problem with that region, as shown above with respect to Greathouse’s teachings found in the claim 2 103 rejection. Specifically, when automatic region of interest positioning results in interference from other circulatory structures, the region of interest is adjusted to avoid such interference (see Greathouse teachings above, in claim 2, Greathouse ¶ [0072]-[0073], and ¶ [0080]-[0081]). Thus, Greathouse teaches changing the specific region used for image analysis based on information identifying a problem with the initially selected region corresponding to the claimed “change of specific region” and performing re-analysis
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the radiographic image analysis apparatus taught by Takagi, previously modified by Kashyap, to incorporate the region of interest adjustment taught by Greathouse, thereby changing an identified problematic region before repeating the analysis, in order to reduce interference affecting the analysis and thereby improving the accuracy and reliability of the resulting analysis.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAMUEL DAVID BAYNES whose telephone number is (571)272-0607. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am - 5:00 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, Stephen R Koziol can be reached at (408)918-7630. 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.
/S.D.B./
Samuel D. Baynes
Examiner, Art Unit 2665
/Stephen R Koziol/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2665
Prosecution Insights