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.
Claims 1-17 are 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 claim recites an information processing device, a medical imaging apparatus, an information processing method and, therefore, is a device or a method.
Step 2A, Prong 1, Judicial Exception: YES - The claim recites “recognize an imaging period … associated with a presentation condition .. present the instruction.” This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, or organizing human activity that can be done with a pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “processor,” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind or on a pen and paper. For example, but for the “processor” language, the claim encompasses a user read images, and imaging acquired time and object and condition and then present some guide. The mere nominal recitation of a generic display, an imaging device, storage medium does not take the claim limitation out of the mental processes or organizing human activity grouping. Thus, the claim recites a mental process or organizing human activity.
Step 2A, Prong 2, Integrated into Practical Application: No - The claim recites additional elements: additional imaging period (imaging timing) or its determination. The additional imaging period or its determination step is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a general means of deciding additional imaging period), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The processor that performs these steps is also recited at a high level of generality, and merely automates these steps. Each of the additional limitations is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (the processor).
The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (the processor). Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to the abstract idea or organizing human activity.
Step 2B, Inventive Concept: No - As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the determinations of additional imaging period were considered to be extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus it is re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if it is more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The background of the example does not provide any indication that the processing circuitry and storage is anything other than a generic, off-the-shelf computer component, and the Symantec, TLI, and OIP Techs. court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). Accordingly, a conclusion that the collecting and comparing step is well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer Option 2. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim, and thus it is ineligible.
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.
Claim(s) 1-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rothberg et al. (US 2017/0360412, hereinafter Rothberg ‘412).
In re claims 1, 16-17, Rothberg ‘412 teaches an information processing device comprising: a processor is configured to, recognize an imaging period during which a part of a subject is imaged in time series of captured images by imaging the subject, wherein the part is associated with a presentation condition for presenting a predetermined instruction guide, and present the instruction guide in accordance with the imaging period (fig. 9; 0110, 0160, 0227-0234).
In re claim 2, Rothberg ‘412 teaches wherein the imaging period is a period including at least one of a start time of an imaging sequence indicating a procedure of the imaging, an end time of the imaging sequence, or any time point in a period after the start time and before the end time (0101, 0113, 0160, 0186).
In re claim 3, Rothberg ‘412 teaches the processor is further configured to determine whether the imaging period is likely to be approaching from the captured images, and present the instruction guide in accordance with the determined imaging period (fig. 9, 906).
In re claim 4, Rothberg ‘412 teaches the processor is further configured to determine whether the imaging period is likely to be approaching from the captured images, and present the instruction guide in accordance with the determined imaging period (fig. 9, 906).
In re claim 5, Rothberg ‘412 teaches the processor is further configured to determine whether the imaging period is likely to be approaching by using imaging conditions set in advance in correspondence with the imaging for the subject (0192, 0194, 0195).
In re claim 6, Rothberg ‘412 teaches wherein the processor determines whether the imaging period is likely to be approaching by using imaging conditions set in advance in correspondence with the imaging for the subject (0192, 0194, 0195).
In re claim 7, Rothberg ‘412 teaches the processor is further configured to determine, from at least one part which is recognized by image recognition on at least one of the captured image, whether the part, associated with the presentation condition, to be subsequently included in the captured image is likely to be imaged (0173-0175, 0185-189, 0259).
In re claim 8, Rothberg ‘412 teaches wherein the processor determines whether the imaging period is likely to be approaching by determining, from the part recognized by image recognition on the captured image, whether another part to be subsequently included in the captured image is likely to be imaged (0173-0175, 0185-189, 0259).
In re claim 9, Rothberg ‘412 teaches the processor is further configured to present a cross section image corresponding to the captured image during the imaging period, such that the part has a different state from other parts (0208).
In re claim 10, Rothberg ‘412 teaches wherein the processor further presents a cross section image corresponding to the captured image for which the imaging period is recognized, such that the part recognized by the image recognition has a different state from other parts (0208).
In re claim 11, Rothberg ‘412 teaches wherein the instruction guide is a voice guide, and the processor reproduces the voice guide in accordance with the imaging period (0237, feedback, 0311, audio is a feedback, voice is interpreted as audio).
In re claim 12, Rothberg ‘412 teaches wherein the instruction guide is a voice guide by voice, and the processor reproduces the voice guide in accordance with the imaging period (023, 0311).
In re claim 13, Rothberg ‘412 teaches wherein the instruction guide is a display guide on a display, and the processor displays the display guide in accordance with the imaging period (0311).
In re claim 14, Rothberg ‘412 teaches wherein the instruction guide is a display guide by display, and the processor displays the display guide in accordance with the imaging period (0311).
In re claim 15, Rothberg ‘412 teaches a medical imaging apparatus comprising: the information processing device according to claim 1 (see rejection for claim 1); and an imaging device that performs main imaging for a medical image while the instruction guide is presented by the information processing device (fig. 9, ultrasound image; fig. 5A, ultrasound device)).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BO JOSEPH PENG whose telephone number is (571)270-1792. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday: 8:00 AM-5:00 PM EST.
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, ANNE M KOZAK can be reached at (571) 270-0552. 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.
/BO JOSEPH PENG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3797
Prosecution Insights