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 .
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claims 1 – 10 are presented examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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)(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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Sugahara et al. (US 2015/0348293 A1; pub. Dec. 3, 2015).
Regarding claim 1, Sugahara et al. disclose: A display control apparatus, comprising:
a hardware processor that sets a display order of a plurality of analysis results for a radiographic image to be displayed on a display (para. [0072]), wherein the hardware processor performs control such that the plurality of analysis results are sequentially displayed on the display in a plurality of times in accordance with the set display order (para. [0072]).
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Wakai (US 2006/0229513 A1; pub. Oct. 12, 2006).
Regarding claim 1, Wakai discloses: A display control apparatus, comprising:
a hardware processor that sets a display order of a plurality of analysis results for a radiographic image to be displayed on a display (para. [0114], [0117]), wherein the hardware processor performs control such that the plurality of analysis results are sequentially displayed on the display in a plurality of times in accordance with the set display order (para. [0114], [0117]).
Claims 1 – 3, 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Reicher et al. (US 2017/0039322 A1; pub. Feb. 9, 2017).
Regarding claim 1, Reicher et al. disclose: A display control apparatus, comprising:
a hardware processor that sets a display order of a plurality of analysis results for a radiographic image to be displayed on a display (para. [0011], [0039]), wherein the hardware processor performs control such that the plurality of analysis results are sequentially displayed on the display in a plurality of times in accordance with the set display order (para. [0011], [0039], [0283]).
Regarding claim 2, Reicher et al. disclose: the hardware processor sets the display order such that the display order follows a diagnosis flow set in advance (para. [0011], [0039], [0283], [0434], [0439]-[0440]).
Regarding claim 3, Reicher et al. disclose: the hardware processor performs control such that a plurality of analysis images are simultaneously displayed on a screen of the display (para. [0308], [0328]), the plurality of analysis images being based on the plurality of analysis results; and the hardware processor sets, according to content of the analysis images, a combination of analysis images to be simultaneously displayed on the screen of the display (para. [0308], [0328]).
Regarding claim 7, Reicher et al. disclose: the hardware processor sets a plurality of patterns of the display order in the plurality of analysis results, based on a combination of an element included in a plurality of types of examination information and an element included in a plurality of types of imaging information; and the hardware processor selects one of the plurality of patterns of the display order based on identification information of a checking user who checks the radiographic image (para. [0265, fig.13, [0434], [0439]-[0440]).
Regarding claim 8, Reicher et al. disclose: the hardware processor sets a plurality of patterns of the display order in the plurality of analysis results, based 5 on a combination of an element included in a plurality of types of examination information and an element included in a plurality of types of imaging information; and the hardware processor selects one of the plurality of patterns of the display order based on information associated with the plurality of analysis results (para. [0265, fig.13, [0434], [0439]-[0440]).
Regarding claim 9, Reicher et al. disclose: A method for controlling display of a plurality of analysis results for a radiographic image, the method comprising:
setting a display order of the plurality of analysis results on a display; and
performing control such that the plurality of analysis results are sequentially displayed on the display in a plurality of times in accordance with the set display order (the claim contains the same substantive limitations as claim 1, therefore, the claim is rejected on the same basis).
Regarding claim 10, Reicher et al. disclose: A non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing a display control program for a plurality of analysis results for a radiographic image, the display control program causing a computer to execute:
setting a display order of the plurality of analysis results to be displayed on a display; and
performing control such that the plurality of analysis results are sequentially displayed on the display in a plurality of times in accordance with the set display order (the claim contains the same substantive limitations as claim 1, therefore, the claim is rejected on the same basis).
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 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.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Reicher et al. (US 2017/0039322 A1; pub. Feb. 9, 2017) in view of Sharma et al. (US 2024/0212829 A1; pub. Jun. 27, 2024).
Regarding claim 4, Reicher et al. are silent about: the plurality of analysis results include a dynamic image; and the hardware processor performs control such that an initial display frame of the dynamic image is selected and displayed on the display based on analysis content in the plurality of analysis results.
In a similar field of endeavor Sharma et al. disclose: the plurality of analysis results include a dynamic image; and the hardware processor performs control such that an initial display frame of the dynamic image is selected and displayed on the display based on analysis content in the plurality of analysis results (para. [0039], [0048]-[0050]) motivated by the benefits for a medical imaging system that can reduce read time, reduce human error, and improve overall quality of service delivered (Sharma et al. para. [0027]).
In light of the benefits for a medical imaging system that can reduce read time, reduce human error, and improve overall quality of service delivered as taught by Sharma et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Reicher et al. with the teachings of Sharma et al.
Claims 5 – 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Reicher et al. (US 2017/0039322 A1; pub. Feb. 9, 2017) in view of Sharma et al. (US 2024/0212829 A1; pub. Jun. 27, 2024) and further in view of Lee et al. (US 2017/0090694 A1; pub. Mar. 30, 2017).
Regarding claim 5, Reicher et al. disclose: the plurality of analysis results include a plurality of the dynamic images; and when a user performs setting to add an annotation to a predetermined frame in a first dynamic image among the plurality of dynamic images (para. [0220], [0228]).
Reicher et al. are silent about: the hardware processor changes an initial display frame of a second dynamic image to be set to a frame related to the predetermined frame, the second dynamic image being an image after the first dynamic image in the display order.
In a similar field of endeavor Lee et al. disclose: the hardware processor changes an initial display frame of a second dynamic image to be set to a frame related to the predetermined frame, the second dynamic image being an image after the first dynamic image in the display order (para. [0222]-[0223]) motivated by the benefits for improving diagnostic accuracy.
In light of the benefits for improving diagnostic accuracy, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Reicher et al. and Sharma et al. with the teachings of Lee et al.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Reicher et al., Sharma et al. and Lee et al. disclose: the hardware processor sets a first display order for a first user as the display order for the first user and sets a second display order for a second user as the display order for the second user; and the hardware processor changes the display order set for the second user from the second display order, based on checking information of the plurality of analysis results by the first user based on the first display order (the claim is rejected on the same basis as claim 5).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAMADOU FAYE whose telephone number is (571)270-0371. The examiner can normally be reached Mon – Fri 9AM-6PM.
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, Uzma Alam can be reached at 571-272-3995. 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.
/MAMADOU FAYE/Examiner, Art Unit 2884
/UZMA ALAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2884
Prosecution Insights