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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Statutory Category: Yes - The claims recite a dynamic analysis apparatus and therefore, is an apparatus.
Step 2A, Prong 1, Judicial Exception: Yes - The claim recites the limitations:
“perform dynamic analysis on a dynamic image,”
“when a pixel of the dynamic analysis image has a signal value less than or equal to a first threshold, [the hardware processor] detects the pixel as a signal decrease region that indicates a decrease in a blood flow value, and [the hardware processor] compares a quantitative value of the detected signal decrease region or a quantitative value of a non-signal decrease region with a second threshold, the non-signal decrease region being other than the signal decrease region, and based on the comparison, determines whether a blood flow defect is present.”
This limitation, as drafted, is a process step that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the performance of the limitation in the mind as it is regarding a concept relating to the analyzing the image and determining presence of a blood defect by observing a region with decrease in blood flow. Specifically, a surgeon can observe the dynamic analysis image of blood flow changes in the images, and based on the observation, one can determine region of blood flow decrease by observing signal value less than the reference, and compare the region/area of signal decrease and compare the area to second threshold, and make judgement whether a blood flow defect is present by using mental framework. The dynamic analysis can be performed in mental framework using opinion, observation by looking at the image, comparison, and judgement. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind and/or being performed with the aid of a pen and paper. Accordingly, the claim recites a mental process-type abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2, Integrated into Practical Application: No - The claim recites the following additional elements:
“image obtained by irradiating a subject with radiation,”
“the dynamic analysis comprising a hardware processor,”
“the hardware processor generates a dynamic analysis image for measuring a blood flow, based on signal value of pixels constituting the dynamic image.”
Obtaining image with irradiation and generating a dynamic analysis image is data gathering and is a form of a pre-solution insignificant activity. The use of a hardware processor for performing mental framework of comparison, observation and determination are recited with high generality, and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application as it is merely used to perform the judicial exception.
These additional elements, taken individually or in combination, merely amount to insignificant pre/post-solution activities and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This claim is therefore directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B, Inventive Concept: No - Similarly to Step 2A Prong 2, the additional claim elements merely recite insignificant extra-solution activities, which do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim. In light of the above, claim 1 is ineligible.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Statutory Category: Yes - The claims recite a dynamic analysis apparatus and therefore, is an apparatus.
Step 2A, Prong 1, Judicial Exception: Yes - The claim recites the limitations:
“the quantitative value is an area,”
“the second threshold is a ratio between an area of the signal decrease region and an area of an entire processing region in the dynamic image”
This limitation, as drafted, is a process step that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the performance of the limitation performing mathematical calculation as area and ratio of area of signals to an entire area in the image are mathematical relationship and can be determined using formula for area and ratio can be determined by dividing region of interest over whole area. Specifically, a surgeon can calculate by observing the area in the image with comparison to threshold, and can determine the ratio of the area over whole area by using mental framework of calculation. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind and/or being performed with the aid of a pen and paper. Accordingly, the claim recites a mathematical concepts of abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2, Integrated into Practical Application: No - The claim does not recite further limitations. This claim is therefore directed to an abstract idea.
The use of a hardware processor for performing mathematical concepts and mental framework, and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application as it is merely used to perform the judicial exception.
These additional elements, taken individually or in combination, merely amount to insignificant pre/post-solution activities and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This claim is therefore directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B, Inventive Concept: No - Similarly to Step 2A Prong 2, the additional claim elements merely recite insignificant extra-solution activities, which do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim. In light of the above, claim 2 is ineligible.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Statutory Category: Yes - The claims recite a dynamic analysis apparatus and therefore, is an apparatus.
Step 2A, Prong 1, Judicial Exception: Yes - The claim recites the limitations:
“the quantitative value is an area,”
“[the second threshold is set for each of the divided regions], based on a ratio between an area of the signal decrease region and an area of an entire processing region in the dynamic image”
This limitation, as drafted, is a process step that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the performance of the limitation performing mathematical calculation as area and ratio of area of signals to an entire area in the image are mathematical relationship and can be determined using formula for area and ratio can be determined by dividing region of interest over whole area. Specifically, a surgeon can calculate by observing the area in the image with comparison to threshold, and can determine the ratio of the area over whole area by using mental framework of calculation. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind and/or being performed with the aid of a pen and paper. Accordingly, the claim recites a mathematical concepts of abstract idea.
The claim further recites the limitations:
“a processing region in the dynamic image is divided into multiple divided regions”
“the second threshold is set for each of the divided regions”
This limitation, as drafted, is a process step that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the performance of the limitation in the mind as it is regarding a concept relating to the analyzing the image and dividing region into multiple image and assigning threshold value for the region. Specifically, a surgeon can observe the dynamic analysis image of blood flow changes in the images, and determine to divide into plurality of regions and assigning threshold value to the region by using mental framework. The dynamic analysis can be performed in mental framework using opinion, observation by looking at the image, comparison, and judgement. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind and/or being performed with the aid of a pen and paper. Accordingly, the claim recites a mental process-type abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2, Integrated into Practical Application: No - The claim does not recite further limitations.
The use of a hardware processor for performing mathematical concepts and mental framework, and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application as it is merely used to perform the judicial exception.
These additional elements, taken individually or in combination, merely amount to insignificant pre/post-solution activities and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This claim is therefore directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B, Inventive Concept: No - Similarly to Step 2A Prong 2, the additional claim elements merely recite insignificant extra-solution activities, which do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim. In light of the above, claim 3 is ineligible.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Statutory Category: Yes - The claims recite a dynamic analysis apparatus and therefore, is an apparatus.
Step 2A, Prong 1, Judicial Exception: Yes - The claim recites the limitations:
“the quantitative value is an area,”
“the second threshold is set for each of the divided regions, based on a ratio between an area of the signal decrease region and an area of an entire processing region in the dynamic image”
This limitation, as drafted, is a process step that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the performance of the limitation performing mathematical calculation as area and ratio of area of signals to an entire area in the image are mathematical relationship and can be determined using formula for area and ratio can be determined by dividing region of interest over whole area. Specifically, a surgeon can calculate by observing the area in the image with comparison to threshold, and can determine the ratio of the area over whole area by using mental framework of calculation. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind and/or being performed with the aid of a pen and paper. Accordingly, the claim recites a mathematical concepts of abstract idea.
The claim further recites the limitations:
“the first threshold is set to a predetermined tone of color among the multiple tones, the predetermined tone corresponding to a blood flow defect.”
This limitation, as drafted, is a process step that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the performance of the limitation in the mind as it is regarding a concept relating to the analyzing the image and assigning different color tones to blood flow condition in the image. Specifically, a surgeon can observe the dynamic analysis image of blood flow changes in the images, and determine to apply blue for blood flow decrease regions and red for blood flow increase regions using mental framework. The dynamic analysis can be performed in mental framework using opinion, observation by looking at the image, comparison, and judgement. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind and/or being performed with the aid of a pen and paper. Accordingly, the claim recites a mental process-type abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2, Integrated into Practical Application: No - The claim recites the following additional elements:
“the dynamic analysis image is expressed in multiple tones of color according to signal value of the pixels constituting the dynamic analysis image”
Generating a dynamic analysis image with multiple tones of color is data gathering and is a form of a pre-solution insignificant activity. The use of a hardware processor for performing mental framework of comparison, observation and determination are recited with high generality, and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application as it is merely used to perform the judicial exception.
These additional elements, taken individually or in combination, merely amount to insignificant pre/post-solution activities and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This claim is therefore directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B, Inventive Concept: No - Similarly to Step 2A Prong 2, the additional claim elements merely recite insignificant extra-solution activities, which do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim. In light of the above, claim 4 is ineligible.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Statutory Category: Yes - The claims recite a dynamic analysis apparatus and therefore, is an apparatus.
Step 2A, Prong 1, Judicial Exception: Yes - The claim recites the limitations:
“corrects a variation in the generated dynamic image caused by different imaging conditions in imaging and the first threshold is set, based on the dynamic analysis image on which the correction of variation is performed.”
This limitation, as drafted, is a process step that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the performance of the limitation in the mind as it is regarding a concept relating to the analyzing the image and correcting the images to be used due to imaging condition. Specifically, a surgeon can observe the dynamic analysis image of blood flow changes in the images, and determine some images or region of images to be excluded for analysis due to movement of patient during imaging and can set threshold for the images that are selected for further analysis. These dynamic analysis can be performed in mental framework using opinion, observation by looking at the image, comparison, and judgement. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind and/or being performed with the aid of a pen and paper. Accordingly, the claim recites a mental process-type abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2, Integrated into Practical Application: No - The claim recites the following additional elements:
“the hardware processor corrects”
The use of a hardware processor for performing mental framework of comparison, observation and determination are recited with high generality, and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application as it is merely used to perform the judicial exception.
These additional elements, taken individually or in combination, merely amount to insignificant pre/post-solution activities and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This claim is therefore directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B, Inventive Concept: No - Similarly to Step 2A Prong 2, the additional claim elements merely recite insignificant extra-solution activities, which do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim. In light of the above, claim 5 is ineligible.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Statutory Category: Yes - The claims recite a dynamic analysis apparatus and therefore, is an apparatus.
Step 2A, Prong 1, Judicial Exception: Yes - The claim recites the limitations:
“a processing region in the dynamic image is divided into multiple divided regions according to a distance from a predetermined reference position”
“different first thresholds are set to the respective divided region”
This limitation, as drafted, is a process step that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the performance of the limitation in the mind as it is regarding a concept relating to the analyzing the image and dividing region into multiple image using a reference point in the image, such as an edge of the organ in the image. Specifically, a surgeon can observe the dynamic analysis image, and determine to divide into plurality of regions and setting threshold value for each of the region by using mental framework. The dynamic analysis can be performed in mental framework using opinion, observation by looking at the image, comparison, and judgement. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind and/or being performed with the aid of a pen and paper. Accordingly, the claim recites a mental process-type abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2, Integrated into Practical Application: No - The claim does not recite further limitations. This claim is therefore directed to an abstract idea.
The use of a hardware processor for performing mental framework, and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application as it is merely used to perform the judicial exception.
These additional elements, taken individually or in combination, merely amount to insignificant pre/post-solution activities and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This claim is therefore directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B, Inventive Concept: No - Similarly to Step 2A Prong 2, the additional claim elements merely recite insignificant extra-solution activities, which do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim. In light of the above, claim 6 is ineligible.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Statutory Category: Yes - The claims recite a dynamic analysis apparatus and therefore, is an apparatus.
Step 2A, Prong 1, Judicial Exception: Yes - The claim recites the limitations:
“when determining that a blood flow defect is present in the dynamic analysis image, [the hardware processor] outputs determination information on the blood flow defect.”
This limitation, as drafted, is a process step that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the performance of the limitation in the mind as it is regarding a concept relating to the analyzing the image and determining the presence of blood defect, and outputting the finding. Specifically, a surgeon can observe the dynamic analysis image, and determine a blood defect presence by judgement, and announce (by pen, computer, or in-person) to a colleague or patient the result by using mental framework. The dynamic analysis can be performed in mental framework using opinion, observation by looking at the image, comparison, and judgement. The outputting the result can be done by in-person communication and written form. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind and/or being performed with the aid of a pen and paper. Accordingly, the claim recites a mental process-type abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2, Integrated into Practical Application: No - The claim does not recite further limitations.
The use of a hardware processor for performing mathematical concepts and mental framework, and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application as it is merely used to perform the judicial exception.
These additional elements, taken individually or in combination, merely amount to insignificant pre/post-solution activities and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This claim is therefore directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B, Inventive Concept: No - Similarly to Step 2A Prong 2, the additional claim elements merely recite insignificant extra-solution activities, which do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim. In light of the above, claim 7 is ineligible.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Statutory Category: Yes - The claims recite a dynamic analysis apparatus and therefore, is an apparatus.
Step 2A, Prong 1, Judicial Exception: Yes - The claim recites the limitations:
“colors the signal decrease region in the dynamic analysis image with a color different from a color of the non-signal decrease region”
This limitation, as drafted, is a process step that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the performance of the limitation in the mind as it is regarding a concept relating to assigning different colors to region with signal changes. Specifically, a surgeon can observe the dynamic analysis image, and determine to assign blue to signal decrease regions while assign red to signal increase regions by using mental framework. The dynamic analysis can be performed in mental framework using opinion, observation by looking at the image, comparison, and judgement. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind and/or being performed with the aid of a pen and paper. Accordingly, the claim recites a mental process-type abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2, Integrated into Practical Application: No - The claim further recites limitations:
“the hardware processor” to perform the judicial exception and
“outputs the colored image.”
The use of a hardware processor for performing mathematical concepts and mental framework, and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application as it is merely used to perform the judicial exception. The outputting the image is mere displaying step of result, constitutes post-solution activity.
These additional elements, taken individually or in combination, merely amount to insignificant pre/post-solution activities and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This claim is therefore directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B, Inventive Concept: No - Similarly to Step 2A Prong 2, the additional claim elements merely recite insignificant extra-solution activities, which do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim. In light of the above, claim 8 is ineligible.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Statutory Category: Yes - The claims recite a dynamic analysis method and therefore, is a method.
Step 2A, Prong 1, Judicial Exception: Yes - The claim recites the limitations:
“performing dynamic analysis on a dynamic image,”
“when a pixel of the dynamic analysis image has a signal value less than or equal to a first threshold, detecting the pixel as a signal decrease region that indicates a decrease in a blood flow value, and comparing a quantitative value of the detected signal decrease region or a quantitative value of a non-signal decrease region with a second threshold, the non-signal decrease region being other than the signal decrease region, and based on the comparison, determines whether a blood flow defect is present.”
This limitation, as drafted, is a process step that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the performance of the limitation in the mind as it is regarding a concept relating to the analyzing the image and determining presence of a blood defect by observing a region with decrease in blood flow. Specifically, a surgeon can observe the dynamic analysis image of blood flow changes in the images, and based on the observation, one can determine region of blood flow decrease by observing signal value less than the reference, and compare the region/area of signal decrease and compare the area to second threshold, and make judgement whether a blood flow defect is present by using mental framework. The dynamic analysis can be performed in mental framework using opinion, observation by looking at the image, comparison, and judgement. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind and/or being performed with the aid of a pen and paper. Accordingly, the claim recites a mental process-type abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2, Integrated into Practical Application: No - The claim recites the following additional elements:
“image obtained by irradiating a subject with radiation,”
“generating a dynamic analysis image for measuring a blood flow, based on signal value of pixels constituting the dynamic image.”
Obtaining image with irradiation and generating a dynamic analysis image is data gathering and is a form of a pre-solution insignificant activity. This data collection step does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application as it is merely used to perform the judicial exception.
These additional elements, taken individually or in combination, merely amount to insignificant pre/post-solution activities and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This claim is therefore directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B, Inventive Concept: No - Similarly to Step 2A Prong 2, the additional claim elements merely recite insignificant extra-solution activities, which do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim. In light of the above, claim 9 is ineligible.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Statutory Category: Yes - The claims recite a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a program for a computer of a dynamic analysis apparatus and therefore, is an apparatus.
Step 2A, Prong 1, Judicial Exception: Yes - The claim recites the limitations:
“perform dynamic analysis on a dynamic image,”
“when a pixel of the dynamic analysis image has a signal value less than or equal to a first threshold, the pixel as a signal decrease region that indicates a decrease in a blood flow value, and compares a quantitative value of the detected signal decrease region or a quantitative value of a non-signal decrease region with a second threshold, the non-signal decrease region being other than the signal decrease region, and based on the comparison, determines whether a blood flow defect is present.”
This limitation, as drafted, is a process step that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the performance of the limitation in the mind as it is regarding a concept relating to the analyzing the image and determining presence of a blood defect by observing a region with decrease in blood flow. Specifically, a surgeon can observe the dynamic analysis image of blood flow changes in the images, and based on the observation, one can determine region of blood flow decrease by observing signal value less than the reference, and compare the region/area of signal decrease and compare the area to second threshold, and make judgement whether a blood flow defect is present by using mental framework. The dynamic analysis can be performed in mental framework using opinion, observation by looking at the image, comparison, and judgement. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind and/or being performed with the aid of a pen and paper. Accordingly, the claim recites a mental process-type abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2, Integrated into Practical Application: No - The claim recites the following additional elements:
“image obtained by irradiating a subject with radiation,”
“a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a program for a computer of a dynamic analysis apparatus configured to perform,”
“the program causing the computer to generates a dynamic analysis image for measuring a blood flow, based on signal value of pixels constituting the dynamic image.”
Obtaining image with irradiation and generating a dynamic analysis image is data gathering and is a form of a pre-solution insignificant activity. The use of a computer with storing instructions for performing mental framework of comparison, observation and determination are recited with high generality, and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application as it is merely used to perform the judicial exception.
These additional elements, taken individually or in combination, merely amount to insignificant pre/post-solution activities and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This claim is therefore directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B, Inventive Concept: No - Similarly to Step 2A Prong 2, the additional claim elements merely recite insignificant extra-solution activities, which do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim. In light of the above, claim 10 is ineligible.
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.
Claims 1, 4-5, 7-8, and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “Shimamura,” US 2020/0034964 (hereinafter Shimamura) and “Moult et al.,” US 2018/0315194 (hereinafter Moult).
Regarding to claim 1, Shimamura teaches a dynamic analysis apparatus configured to perform dynamic analysis on a dynamic image obtained by irradiating a subject with radiation (dynamic image that irradiates the object with pulsed radiation [0067]-[0070]), the dynamic analysis apparatus comprising a hardware processor (analysis apparatus includes a hardware processor [0094]), wherein:
the hardware processor generates a dynamic analysis image for measuring a blood flow, based on signal values of pixels constituting the dynamic image (blood flow analysis image [0254]),
Shimamura does not further explicitly disclose when a pixel of the dynamic analysis image has a signal value less than or equal to a first threshold, the hardware processor detects the pixel as a signal decrease region that indicates a decrease in a blood flow value, and the hardware processor compares a quantitative value of the detected signal decrease region or a quantitative value of a non-signal decrease region with a second threshold, the non-signal decrease region being other than the signal decrease region, and based on the comparison, determines whether a blood flow defect is present.
However, in the analogous field of endeavor in angiographic imaging blood flow analysis, Moult teaches when a pixel of the dynamic analysis image has a signal value less than or equal to a first threshold, the hardware processor detects the pixel as a signal decrease region that indicates a decrease in a blood flow value (analyzing images, including pixel values are evaluated for abnormal condition, images are analyzed for information of blood flow, pixel values are determined to be abnormal based on comparisons to predefined thresholds, [0097]) and the hardware processor compares a quantitative value of the detected signal decrease region or a quantitative value of a non-signal decrease region with a second threshold, the non-signal decrease region being other than the signal decrease region, and based on the comparison, determines whether a blood flow defect is present (analyzing images, area of the abnormal features by comparing identified pixels collectively, and blood flow can be determined to be region of decreased blood flow when regions whose pixels values are lower than expected normal state [0097]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify dynamic analysis image as taught by Shimamura to incorporate teaching of Moult, since detecting abnormal state by analyzing images with areas by comparing pixels where the blood flow decrease regions are identified using comparison was well known in the art as taught by Moult. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by Shimamura with no change in their respective functions, determining a region with decrease blood flow by thresholding, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. The motivation would have been to detect abnormal area in blood flow ([0097]), and there was reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding to claims 4-5, Shimamura and Moult together teach all limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
Shimamura further teaches following limitations:
Of claim 4, the dynamic analysis image is expressed in multiple tones of color according to the signal values of the pixels constituting the dynamic analysis image (decreasing blood flow region expressed in cold color such as blue [0317]), and the first threshold is set to a predetermined tone of color among the multiple tones (Blood flow change matches its corresponding color, the predetermined tone corresponding to a blood flow defect (decreasing blood flow with cold color, increasing blood flow with warm color [0317]).
Of claim 5, the hardware processor corrects a variation in the generated dynamic analysis image caused by different imaging conditions in imaging, and the first threshold is set, based on the dynamic analysis image on which the correction of the variation is performed (imaging condition such as movement caused by body motion [0127], blood flow analysis image components other than a change in blood flow volume has been removed to correctly recognize the change in blood flow volume for appropriate diagnosis [0155])
Regarding to claim 7, Shimamura and Moult together teach all limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
Moult further teaches wherein when determining that a blood flow defect is present in the dynamic analysis image, the hardware processor outputs determination information on the blood flow defect (outputs of images used to compute number, which is used to grade a level of ocular disease based on abnormal value/feature ([0097]).
Regarding to claim 8, Shimamura and Moult together teach all limitations of claim 7 as discussed above.
Shimamura further teaches wherein the hardware processor colors the signal decrease region in the dynamic analysis image with a color different from a color of the non-signal decrease region and outputs the colored dynamic analysis image ([0299], [0303], and region Ar1 with decrease in blood flow volume expressed in blue while region Ar2 with an increasing blood flow volume expressed in red [0317]).
Regarding to claim 9, Shimamura teaches a dynamic analysis method of performing dynamic analysis on a dynamic image obtained by irradiating a subject with radiation ([0067]-[0070]), the method comprising:
generating a dynamic analysis image for measuring a blood flow, based on signal values of pixels constituting the dynamic image (blood flow analysis image [0254]),
Shimamura does not further explicitly disclose when a pixel of the dynamic analysis image has a signal value less than or equal to a first threshold, the hardware processor detects the pixel as a signal decrease region that indicates a decrease in a blood flow value, and the hardware processor compares a quantitative value of the detected signal decrease region or a quantitative value of a non-signal decrease region with a second threshold, the non-signal decrease region being other than the signal decrease region, and based on the comparison, determines whether a blood flow defect is present.
However, in the analogous field of endeavor in angiographic imaging blood flow analysis, Moult teaches when a pixel of the dynamic analysis image has a signal value less than or equal to a first threshold, the hardware processor detects the pixel as a signal decrease region that indicates a decrease in a blood flow value (analyzing images, including pixel values are evaluated for abnormal condition, images are analyzed for information of blood flow, pixel values are determined to be abnormal based on comparisons to predefined thresholds, [0097]) and the hardware processor compares a quantitative value of the detected signal decrease region or a quantitative value of a non-signal decrease region with a second threshold, the non-signal decrease region being other than the signal decrease region, and based on the comparison, determines whether a blood flow defect is present (analyzing images, area of the abnormal features by comparing identified pixels collectively, and blood flow can be determined to be region of decreased blood flow when regions whose pixels values are lower than expected normal state [0097]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify dynamic analysis image as taught by Shimamura to incorporate teaching of Moult, since detecting abnormal state by analyzing images with areas by comparing pixels where the blood flow decrease regions are identified using comparison was well known in the art as taught by Moult. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by Shimamura with no change in their respective functions, determining a region with decrease blood flow by thresholding, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. The motivation would have been to detect abnormal area in blood flow ([0097]), and there was reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding to claim 10, Shimamura teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a program for a computer (a computer reads the system program [0107]) of a dynamic analysis apparatus configured to perform dynamic analysis on a dynamic image obtained by irradiating a subject with radiation ([0067]-[0070]), the program causing the computer (claim 12) to:
generate a dynamic analysis image for measuring a blood flow, based on signal values of pixels constituting the dynamic image (blood flow analysis image [0254]),
Shimamura does not further explicitly disclose when a pixel of the dynamic analysis image has a signal value less than or equal to a first threshold, the hardware processor detects the pixel as a signal decrease region that indicates a decrease in a blood flow value, and the hardware processor compares a quantitative value of the detected signal decrease region or a quantitative value of a non-signal decrease region with a second threshold, the non-signal decrease region being other than the signal decrease region, and based on the comparison, determines whether a blood flow defect is present.
However, in the analogous field of endeavor in angiographic imaging blood flow analysis, Moult teaches when a pixel of the dynamic analysis image has a signal value less than or equal to a first threshold, the hardware processor detects the pixel as a signal decrease region that indicates a decrease in a blood flow value (analyzing images, including pixel values are evaluated for abnormal condition, images are analyzed for information of blood flow, pixel values are determined to be abnormal based on comparisons to predefined thresholds, [0097]) and the hardware processor compares a quantitative value of the detected signal decrease region or a quantitative value of a non-signal decrease region with a second threshold, the non-signal decrease region being other than the signal decrease region, and based on the comparison, determines whether a blood flow defect is present (analyzing images, area of the abnormal features by comparing identified pixels collectively, and blood flow can be determined to be region of decreased blood flow when regions whose pixels values are lower than expected normal state [0097]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify dynamic analysis image as taught by Shimamura to incorporate teaching of Moult, since detecting abnormal state by analyzing images with areas by comparing pixels where the blood flow decrease regions are identified using comparison was well known in the art as taught by Moult. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by Shimamura with no change in their respective functions, determining a region with decrease blood flow by thresholding, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. The motivation would have been to detect abnormal area in blood flow ([0097]), and there was reasonable expectation of success.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimamura and Moult as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of “Shimamura et al.,” US 2020/0327665 (hereinafter Shimamura 665).
Regarding to claim 2, Shimamura and Moult together teach all limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
Moult further teaches in analyzing blood flow in images, the quantitative value is an area (area of abnormal features [0097]), but does not further teach that the second threshold is a ratio between an area of the signal decrease region and an area of an entire processing region in the dynamic image.
However, in the analogous field of endeavor in dynamic image analysis, Shimamura 665 discloses dynamic analysis image of lung, wherein the ratio of affected region over whole lung and determining characteristic amounts relating to the area of affected and whole area wherein the characteristic amounts can include a blood flow ([0082]-[0083]), and specifically can include blood flow increase and decrease ([0108]), and can include ratio integrated blood flow characteristic amount in the region to the integrated value of the blood flow characteristic amount in the entire lung is calculated ([0162]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify dynamic image as taught by Shimamura to incorporate teaching of Shimamura 665, since ratio of blood flow change in the region over entire region was well known in the art as taught by Shimamura 665. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by Shimamura with no change in their respective functions, configuring its blood flow to be determined as a ratio, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. The motivation would have been to provide local blood flow characteristic amount to the entire lung ([0162]), and there was reasonable expectation of success.
Claim(s) 3 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimamura and Moult as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of “Shimamura et al.,” US 2020/0327665 (hereinafter Shimamura 665) and “Muraoka et al.,” US 2013/0156267 (hereinafter Muraoka).
Regarding to claims 3 and 6, Shimamura and Moult together teach all limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
Shimamura 665 teaches dynamic analysis with following limitations:
Of claim 3, a processing region in the dynamic image is divided into multiple divided regions (left and right lung field regions may be divided into three equal parts in the upper, middle, and lower power [0162]), the quantitative value is an area (blood flow characteristics amount in each of the six divided regions to the integrated value of the blood flow characteristics amount in the entire lung field [0163]), and the second threshold is set based on a ratio between an area of the signal decrease region in the divided region and an area of the entire region ([0082]-[0083], [0108], and [0162]).
Of claim 6, a processing region in the dynamic image is divided into multiple divided regions according to a distance from a predetermined reference position ([0162], distance from the endpoints to regions [0217])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify dynamic image as taught by Shimamura to incorporate teaching of Shimamura 665, since dividing regions into multiple sub-regions was well known in the art as taught by Shimamura 665. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by Shimamura with no change in their respective functions, dividing target in the image into multiple subregions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. The motivation would have been to provide local blood flow characteristics within the lung ([0217]), and there was reasonable expectation of success.
Shimamura 665 do not further disclose threshold value is set for each of the regions, based on a ratio between an area of the signal decrease region in the region and an area of the entire region, but does not teach threshold value is set for each of the regions.
However, in the analogous field of endeavor in dynamic analysis image, Muraoka teaches dynamic analysis image wherein the second threshold value is set for each of the divided regions ([0199] and [0204], [0206]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify subregions in the image as taught by Shimamura 665 to incorporate teaching of Muraoka, since threshold setting for each of the regions was well known in the art as taught by Muraoka. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by Shimamura 665 with no change in their respective functions, configuring the threshold for abnormality for each subregion, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. The motivation would have been to provide abnormal/disorder determination for each subregion ([0204]), and there was reasonable expectation of success.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PATRICIA J PARK whose telephone number is (571)270-1788. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8 am - 3 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, Pascal Bui-Pho can be reached at 571-272-2714. 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.
/PATRICIA J PARK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3798
Prosecution Insights