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 .
Applicant’s Response
In Applicant’s Response dated 7/3/26, the Applicant amended Claims 1, 2, 6-9, 13-16, 20, 21, canceled 3, 10, 17 and argued Claims previously rejected in the Office Action dated 4/6/26. Claims 1, 2, 4-9, 11-16 and 18-21 are pending examination.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 7/1/26 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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, 2, 4-10, 12-16 and 18-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite “receive a medical image generated by an imaging apparatus”, “extract an abnormal shadow present in the medical image”, “derive an evaluation value…by analyzing the abnormal shadow”, “changing an amount of description of the finding according to the evaluation value” and “display the evaluation value, and text including a finding corresponding to the abnormal shadow”. These claims fall within the mental process groupings of abstract ideas because they cover concepts performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. Under its broadest reasonable interpretation when read in light of the specification, the “deriving an evaluation value”, “extract an abnormal shadow present in the medical image” and “changing an amount of description of the finding according to the evaluation value” encompasses mental processes practically performed in the human mind by observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. A human can observe the image for abnormal shadows, evaluate the regions of interest and assign the ROI a value based on the evaluation and generate more text for each ROI based on importance. The claims do not require a specific algorithm or advancement to technology to determine the value or generate text, thus these limitations can be performed in the human mind.
The limitations “receive a medical image generated by an imaging apparatus” and “display the evaluation value, and text including a finding corresponding to the abnormal shadow” are mere data gathering recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g) (“whether the limitation is significant”). In addition, all uses of the recited judicial exceptions require such data gathering, and, as such, this limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on the claim. This limitations amount to necessary data gathering. This additional elements does not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application.
As discussed above, this additional element represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1, 2, 4-10, 12-16 and 18-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Song et al., United States Patent Publication 2019/0139218 (hereinafter “Song”).
Claim 1:
Song discloses:
An apparatus comprising: one or more processes configured to:
wherein the processor is configured to:
receive a medical image generated by an imaging apparatus (see paragraph [0026]). Song teaches receiving a medical image from an imaging device.
extract an abnormal shadow present in the medical image (see paragraphs [0015] and [0016]). Song teaches the regions of interests can be acquire semi-automatically or automatically from the medical image;
derive an evaluation value from a plurality of evaluation values of an evaluation value table stored in a memory, by analyzing the abnormal shadow (see paragraphs [0056], [0057], [0064]). Song teaches evaluating the features and assigning weights that determine the importance of regions of interest. The weighted features will be the target of the report of the document; and
display the evaluation index, a type of the abnormal shadow, and text corresponding to the abnormal shadow (see paragraphs [0041] and[0045]-[0047]). Song teaches displaying the text corresponding to the findings, the type of finding and the quantitative values.
change an amount of description of the finding according to the evaluation value, such that the amount of description corresponding to the first evaluation value is greater than the amount of description according to a second evaluation value lower than the first evaluation value (see paragraphs [0056] and [0057]). Song teaches the extracted image features may be weighted with the respective attention weights. The weighted image features may reflect the respective levels of importance.
Diagnostic report generating system may generate a natural language description of selected image based on the weighted image features. If the image includes image features of interest and high important and a description will be made vs an image having features of less importance will not have a description or little description.
wherein
the text includes a finding regarding the abnormal shadow (see paragraph [0064]). Song teaches generating text and keywords based on the weights giving to the features and regions of interest, and
the finding includes a position of the abnormal shadow, a presence or absence of calcification, and the type of the abnormal shadow (see paragraph [0041]). Song teaches including the position and type of abnormal findings detected. Song also teaches determining if the findings are benign or malignant.
Song fails to expressly disclose changing the amount of the findings based on the evaluation index.
Claim 2:
Song discloses:
wherein the one or more processors are configured to extract a plurality of abnormal shadows (see paragraph [0015] and [0041]). Song teaches extracting multiple abnormal shadows; and
display a plurality of evaluation values, types corresponding to the plurality of abnormal shadows, and text corresponding to one of the plurality of abnormal shadows (see paragraph [0041]). Song teaches displaying a plurality of indexes, types and text from other finding in the report.
Claim 4:
Song discloses:
wherein the one or more processors are configured to extract the abnormal shadow by using a trained model (see paragraphs [0061] and [0062]). Song teaches extracting abnormal finding using a trained model.
Claim 5:
Song discloses:
wherein the one or more processors are configured to receive a correction to the text by a user (see paragraphs [0015], [0043]). Song teaches receiving edits to correct the text by the user.
Claim 6:
Song discloses:
wherein the one or more processors are configured to change the evaluation index according to the type of the abnormal shadow (see paragraphs [0047]-[0049] and [0056]). Song teaches the user being able to make adjustments through the user interface to the regions of interests/weights.
Claim 7:
Song discloses:
wherein the one or more processors are configured to derive the evaluation value based on a progress of the abnormal shadow, which is derived from information about a past examination (see paragraph [0015]). Song teaches the making changes by the adding the new finding and generating new reports based on the new weighted features.
Claims 8, 9, 11-14:
Although Claims 8, 9, 11-14 are non-transitory computer-readable storage medium claims, they are interpreted and rejected for the same reasons as the apparatus of Claims 1, 2, 4-7, respectively.
Claims 15, 16, 18-21:
Although Claims 15, 16, 18-21 are method claims, they are interpreted and rejected for the same reasons as the apparatus of Claims 1, 2, 4-7, respectively.
Pertinent Art
20200321100 – This art is relevant because it also determines the importance of findings and generates text based on the findings.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/3/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Claim Rejections under 35 USC 101
Applicant argues the claimed invention are amended to include the limitations described above so that the claimed invention generates "the finding", in a way that the amount of description is dependent on the evaluation value. In this way, finding that is not important does not lead to the generation of a large quantity of texts which may clutter the screen with unimportant information.
The Examiner disagrees.
The technological improvement is using a computer to perform an abstract idea. As discussed above, a human is able to view medical images, determine findings, generate text based on found findings that are deemed important (see the above rejection for Claim 1). Thus, the 101 rejections are maintained.
Claim Rejections under 35 USC 102
Applicant argues The Song reference does not anticipate claim 1 regarding "derive an evaluation value from a plurality of evaluation values of an evaluation value table stored in a memory, by analyzing the abnormal shadow" and "change an amount of description of the finding according to the evaluation value, such that the amount of description corresponding to a first evaluation value is greater than the amount of description according to a second evaluation value lower than the first evaluation value", as stated in claim 1 and as similarly stated in independent claims 8 and 15.
The Examiner disagrees.
Song teaches the extracted image features may be weighted with the respective attention weights. The weighted image features may reflect the respective levels of importance. Diagnostic report generating system may generate a natural language description of selected image based on the weighted image features. If the image includes image features of interest and high important and a description will be made vs an image having features of less importance will not have a description or little description (see paragraphs [0056] and [0057]). Thus, Song reads the amended limitation.
Applicant argues the Song reference does not anticipate these limitations above. The Song reference mentioned the use of a physical table for examining a patient but not an evaluation value table stored from which an evaluation value is derived by analyzing the abnormal shadow. Further, the entire Song reference at best describe generating and editing a medical report, but it does not disclose the concept of being
able to change the amount of description based on the evaluation value.
The Examiner disagrees.
The Song reference does teach the amount being changed based on a level on importance. The Examiner suggest further amending the claims to include how the user is able to change the amount or is specific number and limit levels are the amount. Thus, as written, the Song reference teaches the limitations of the claims.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIONNA M BURKE whose telephone number is (571)270-7259. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8a-4p.
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, Stephen Hong can be reached at (571)272-4124. 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.
/TIONNA M BURKE/Examiner, Art Unit 2178 7/23/26
/STEPHEN S HONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2178
Prosecution Insights