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 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 first contour information acquisition unit, a second contour information acquisition unit, a condition acquisition unit and an evaluation unit, in claim 10.
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 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 2-4 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.
Claim 2 recites a limitation of “calculating …first inter-contour distance information indicating a distance from an individual point of at least one first contour indicated by the first contour information toward at least one second contour indicated by the second contour information and second inter-contour distance information indicating a distance from an individual point of the at least one second contour toward the at least one first contour, and generating the evaluation information based on the condition provided for inter-contour distance information based on the first inter-contour distance information and the second inter- contour distance information”, its unclear if there are two different inter-contour distance information is claimed or just one, as the distance between A to B will be same as B to A. This makes the claim indefinite.
Claims 3 and 4 depend on claim 2 and therefore are rejected as well.
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.
Claims 1, 5-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peng (US Pub. 2020/0401854).
With respect to claim 1, Peng discloses A method, comprising: by a computer:
inputting a subject image in which at least one subject to be detected is imaged to a learning model and acquiring first contour information indicating a contour of the at least one subject to be detected in the subject image;
acquiring second contour information indicating a contour of the at least one subject to be detected and serving as a reference for evaluating the first contour information (see paragraph 0016-0017, wherein …the annotated evaluation image “first contour information” and the existing segmentation annotation “second contour information”…);
generating, based on the first contour information, the second contour information, and the
However, Peng fails to explicitly disclose acquiring a condition to be satisfied by the first contour information; and generating, based on the first contour information, the second contour information, and the condition, evaluation information in which performance of the learning model is evaluated, (emphasis added), as claimed.
But, Peng in paragraph 0095 teaches, …In this embodiment, this is done by determining whether a difference between the results generated by the trained model and the annotation data associated with the annotated images (or ‘ground truth images’) 66 employed in step 74 are below a predefined threshold… this teaching of predefined threshold is read as “acquiring a condition to be satisfied”, as claimed.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art at the effective date of invention to simply utilize the teaching of Peng in paragraph 0095 to be incorporated, in to the Peng’s system, as acquiring a condition in order to yield the predictable result of evaluation of the performance of learning model as claimed.
With respect to claim 5, Peng further discloses the acquiring second contour information includes acquiring the second contour information stored in a storage unit as information indicating a contour of at least one reference subject in an acquired image, (see figure 1B, memory 36 with storage of evaluation images), as claimed.
With respect to claim 6, Peng further discloses generating setting screen information for displaying a condition setting screen including the subject image for a user, wherein the acquiring a condition to be satisfied by the first contour information includes acquiring the condition from the user through the condition setting screen, (see figure 3, numerical 20 GUI and numerical 108 for user interactions), as claimed.
With respect to claim 7-9, Peng further discloses wherein the acquiring second contour information includes acquiring the second contour information acquired from the user through the condition setting screen; generating output screen information for displaying, for the user, an output screen including the subject image, a predicted image based on the first contour information, and the evaluation information; and generating evaluation information further includes generating comparison information indicating a difference between the first contour information and the second contour information, and the output screen further includes the comparison information, (see figure 3 and paragraph 0103, wherein … GUI 20 “display” includes a preliminary result window 102 and an annotated image window 104; annotated image window 104 includes a plurality of annotation tools 106. Annotation tools 106 include both manual “user” and semi-manual annotation tools, displayable to and manipulable “the condition setting screen” by an annotator. These tools are depicted schematically in FIG. 4, and include manual tools including a brush 130 and an eraser 132. Brush 130 can be controlled by an annotator to label the pixels of different structures or material into different values or colours; eraser 132 can be controlled by an annotator to remove over-segmented or over-identified pixels from targeted structures or material. The semi-manual annotation tools include a flood fill tool 134 that can be controlled by an annotator to draw a contour enclosing a targeted structure or material prompting annotated image window 104 to annotate all of the pixels/voxels inside that contour, and a region grow tool 136 that can be controlled by an annotator, after having annotated a small part of a targeted structure or material, to control annotated image window 104 to expand the annotation to cover the entire structure or material), as claimed.
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected for the same reasons as set forth in the rejections for claim 1, because claims 10 and 11 are claiming subject matter of similar scope as claimed in claim 1. Furthermore, Peng discloses the system in figure 1A, and computer program in paragraph 0027, as claimed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VIKKRAM BALI whose telephone number is (571)272-7415. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:00AM-3:00PM.
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, Gregory Morse can be reached at 571-272-3838. 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.
/VIKKRAM BALI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2663
Prosecution Insights