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 .
Notice to Applicants
This communication is in response to the action filed on 02/20/2025.
Claims 1-8 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS’s) filed on 02/20/2025; and 09/25/2025 have been fully considered.
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)(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.
(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.
Claims 1, and 5-8 are rejected under 35 § U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 6,272,233 B1 to TAKEO (hereinafter “TAKEO”).
As per claim 1, TAKEO discloses an image processing apparatus comprising (a computing system and method of operation to perform an image processing method/operation; abstract; figs 1, 13, and 18; column 2, line 40-column 3, line 60): a processor (a computer comprising a computing processor; column 19, lines 24-51), wherein the processor is configured to: acquire a radiation image obtained by imaging a breast with radiation (the computing system is adapted to receive as an input breast/mammogram radiation images of a subjects anatomy/tissue; fig 1-2, and 4; column 1, lines 45-53; column 6, lines 13-55; column 19, line 24-column 20, line 63); normalize a rate of change in a brightness gradient in the acquired radiation image (gradient vectors for image density and brightness of the image are used to determine image type/ synthesis and given vector name I in cases where the value of delta I (delta is refereeing to the change/difference in I vector) is not larger than 0, there is a strong possibility that the prospective abnormal pattern located in the region will be a false positive further, in cases where the value of delta I is not larger than 0, the region is regarded as being a false positive and canceled versus in cases where the value of delta I is larger than 0, the values of delta I obtained in the region are normalized with Formula 10 or 10’ shown below, and a difference value delta I is obtained and input to the comparison means which detects the degree of malignancy of the prospective abnormal pattern, which has been detected by the prospective abnormal pattern region detecting means 12, in accordance with the entire area image signal SA; column 5, lines 6-65; column 30, lines 10-45; column 36, lines 14-41), using a variation degree that indicates a degree of variation of a local region in the rate of change of the brightness gradient (significant differences (variations) are found between the tumor pattern P1 and the false positive P3 in the characteristic values of the simultaneous formation matrix Pg(x, y), the characteristic values of the simultaneous formation matrix are herein referred to as the edge information at step S4, as the edge information, the following are calculated respectively: i a first index value, var, which represents the variance (variance degree value/variable associated) with respect to the simultaneous formation matrix and is calculated with Formula 11; column 32, lines 15-67); and detect a position of a calcification lesion in the radiation image by performing threshold value processing using a predetermined threshold value on the normalized rate of change in the brightness gradient (comparison and judgment means 28, the value C of the degree of centralization of the gradient vector group and the predetermined threshold value T are compared with each other to determine the position of calcification/tumor area in the image where several threshold values of different levels are prepared, threshold value of each level is employed by way of trial, and a threshold value of a level is ultimately employed such that the number of detected prospective tumor patterns may fall within the range of seven to ten; column 1, lines 54-67; column 2, lines 40-60; column 3, lines 26-64; column 24, lines 15-60).
As per claim 5, TAKEO discloses the image processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to: derive the rate of change in the brightness gradient by filtering using a gradient concentration filter (the rate of change equations sets include an iris filter acting substantially as a gradient filter by filtering gradient vectors below a threshold; column 27, line 48-column 28, line 23).
As per claim 6, TAKEO discloses the image processing apparatus according to claim 5, wherein the processor is configured to: apply any one of a gradient concentration filter having isotropic weighting or a gradient concentration filter having anisotropic weighting as the gradient concentration filter (the iris filter includes a predetermined thresholding value which is applied based on comparison and judgment means 28, the value C of the degree of centralization of the gradient vector group and the predetermined threshold value T are compared with each other to determine the position of calcification/tumor area in the image where several threshold values of different levels are prepared, threshold value of each level is employed by way of trial, and a threshold value of a level is ultimately employed such that the number of detected prospective tumor patterns may fall within the range of seven to ten and since the threshold value is adjustable/variable in weight or value then it is by definition an isotropic weight; column 1, lines 54-67; column 2, lines 40-60; column 3, lines 26-64; column 24, lines 15-60 ).
As per claim 7, TAKEO discloses a radiography system comprising: the image processing apparatus according to claim 1 (see the write up of claim 1); and a radiography apparatus that captures a radiation image used by the image processing apparatus (the computing system includes an x-ray radiograph machine that captures a radiation image of the patient/subject anatomy; column 2, lines 13-33; column 6, lines 18-56).
As per claim 8, TAKEO discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a program executable by a computer to execute a process comprising (a computing system and method of operation to perform an image processing method/operation using a computing processor and corresponding memory component of the computer to store and execute data, instructions, and programs related to the method; abstract; figs 1, 13, and 18; column 2, line 40-column 3, line 60): acquiring a radiation image obtained by imaging a breast with radiation (the computing system is adapted to receive as an input breast/mammogram radiation images of a subjects anatomy/tissue; fig 1-2, and 4; column 1, lines 45-53; column 6, lines 13-55; column 19, line 24-column 20, line 63); standardizing a rate of change in a brightness gradient in the acquired radiation image (gradient vectors for image density and brightness of the image are used to determine image type/ synthesis and given vector name I in cases where the value of delta I (delta is referring to the change/difference in I vector) is not larger than 0, there is a strong possibility that the prospective abnormal pattern located in the region will be a false positive further, in cases where the value of delta I is not larger than 0, the region is regarded as being a false positive and canceled versus in cases where the value of delta I is larger than 0, the values of delta I obtained in the region are normalized with Formula 10 or 10’ shown below, and a difference value delta I is obtained and input to the comparison means which detects the degree of malignancy of the prospective abnormal pattern, which has been detected by the prospective abnormal pattern region detecting means 12, in accordance with the entire area image signal SA; column 5, lines 6-65; column 30, lines 10-45; column 36, lines 14-41) using a variation degree that indicates a degree of variation of a local region in the rate of change in the brightness gradient (significant differences (variations) are found between the tumor pattern P1 and the false positive P3 in the characteristic values of the simultaneous formation matrix Pg(x, y), the characteristic values of the simultaneous formation matrix are herein referred to as the edge information at step S4, as the edge information, the following are calculated respectively: i a first index value, var, which represents the variance (variance degree value/variable associated) with respect to the simultaneous formation matrix and is calculated with Formula 11; column 32, lines 15-67); and detecting a position of a calcification lesion in the radiation image by performing threshold value processing using a predetermined threshold value on the normalized rate of change in the brightness gradient (comparison and judgment means 28, the value C of the degree of centralization of the gradient vector group and the predetermined threshold value T are compared with each other to determine the position of calcification/tumor area in the image where several threshold values of different levels are prepared, threshold value of each level is employed by way of trial, and a threshold value of a level is ultimately employed such that the number of detected prospective tumor patterns may fall within the range of seven to ten; column 1, lines 54-67; column 2, lines 40-60; column 3, lines 26-64; column 24, lines 15-60).
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 non-obviousness.
Claims 2-4 are rejected under 35 § U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over US 6,272,233 B1 to TAKEO (hereinafter “TAKEO”) in view of WO 2024/166039 A1 to ECCLESTONE et al. (hereinafter “ECCLESTONE”).
As per claim 2, TAKEO discloses the image processing apparatus according to claim 1. TAKEO fails to disclose wherein the processor is configured to: create a synthesized two-dimensional image of the breast using a detection result of the position of the calcification lesion.
ECCLESTONE discloses wherein the processor is configured to: create a synthesized two-dimensional image of the breast using a detection result of the position of the calcification lesion (the computing system is adapted to generate a two-dimensional image of the anatomical area/tissue from the radiation image/x-ray device; paragraph [00126]).
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 TAKEO to have wherein the processor is configured to: create a synthesized two-dimensional image of the breast using a detection result of the position of the calcification lesion of ECCLESTONE reference. The Suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to provide outputs as two-dimensional images as suggested by [00126] of ECCLESTONE. Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above by known method with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine ECCLESTONE with TAKEO to obtain the invention as specified in claim 2.
As per claim 3, TAKEO discloses the image processing apparatus according to claim 1. TAKEO fails to disclose wherein the variation degree is a standard deviation or a variance for each local region in the rate of change in the brightness gradient.
ECCLESTONE discloses wherein the variation degree is a standard deviation or a variance for each local region in the rate of change in the brightness gradient (the variance degree is applied as the standard deviation of the data/value set; paragraphs [00267], [00273]).
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 TAKEO to have variation degree is a standard deviation or a variance for each local region in the rate of change in the brightness gradient of ECCLESTONE reference. The Suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to provide for the allowed variance is scaled based on the local intensity, where lower intensities allow less variance as the noise is expected to be higher. It will be appreciated that this filtering method may remove bright or dark outliers from the image without impacting the image sharpness or inducing any blurring as suggested by paragraph [00273] of ECCLESTONE. Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above by known method with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine ECCLESTONE with TAKEO to obtain the invention as specified in claim 3.
As per claim 4, TAKEO discloses the image processing apparatus according to claim 1. TAKEO fails to disclose wherein the processor is configured to: perform the normalization by multiplying an inverse of the variation degree by the rate of change in the brightness gradient.
ECCLESTONE discloses wherein the processor is configured to: perform the normalization by multiplying an inverse of the variation degree by the rate of change in the brightness gradient (using a calibration target the computing system is adapted to be able to apply the variance as the standard deviation of the gradient and can use the inverse of the standard deviation to normalize delta I (the rate of change of the observed gradient vector of TAKEO); paragraphs [0187], [00267], [00273]).
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 TAKEO to have perform the normalization by multiplying an inverse of the variation degree by the rate of change in the brightness gradient of ECCLESTONE reference. The Suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to provide for the allowed variance is scaled based on the local intensity, where lower intensities allow less variance as the noise is expected to be higher. It will be appreciated that this filtering method may remove bright or dark outliers from the image without impacting the image sharpness or inducing any blurring as suggested by paragraph [00273] of ECCLESTONE. Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above by known method with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine ECCLESTONE with TAKEO to obtain the invention as specified in claim 4.
Conclusion
Examiner's Note: Examiner has cited figures, and paragraphs in the references as applied to the claims above 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 and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested for the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the references in entirety 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. Examiner has also cited references in PTO892 but not relied on, which are relevant and pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure, and may also be reading (anticipatory/obvious) on the claims and claimed limitations. Applicant is advised to consider the references in preparing the response/amendments in-order to expedite the prosecution.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEVIN JACOB DHOOGE whose telephone number is (571) 270-0999. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30-5:00.
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, Andrew Bee can be reached on (571) 270-5183. 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.
/D J DHOOGE/Examiner, Art Unit 2677
Prosecution Insights