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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on September 19, 2024 and August 21, 2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-23 and 32 in the reply filed on 10/27/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims (24, 33) and (26, 34) withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 10/27/2025.
Applicant stands correct that the present application is a 371 National Stage application and should have been evaluated under the “Lack of Unity” test. Examiner appreciates applicant’s reminder for this oversight. However, lack of unity exists and the groupings are consistent with the restriction groupings in the last Office Action as can been see below.
REQUIREMENT FOR UNITY OF INVENTION
As provided in 37 CFR 1.475(a), a national stage application shall relate to one invention only or to a group of inventions so linked as to form a single general inventive concept (“requirement of unity of invention”). Where a group of inventions is claimed in a national stage application, the requirement of unity of invention shall be fulfilled only when there is a technical relationship among those inventions involving one or more of the same or corresponding special technical features. The expression “special technical features” shall mean those technical features that define a contribution which each of the claimed inventions, considered as a whole, makes over the prior art.
The determination whether a group of inventions is so linked as to form a single general inventive concept shall be made without regard to whether the inventions are claimed in separate claims or as alternatives within a single claim. See 37 CFR 1.475(e).
When Claims Are Directed to Multiple Categories of Inventions:
As provided in 37 CFR 1.475 (b), a national stage application containing claims to different categories of invention will be considered to have unity of invention if the claims are drawn only to one of the following combinations of categories:
(1) A product and a process specially adapted for the manufacture of said product; or
(2) A product and a process of use of said product; or
(3) A product, a process specially adapted for the manufacture of the said product, and a use of the said product; or
(4) A process and an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out the said process; or
(5) A product, a process specially adapted for the manufacture of the said product, and an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out the said process.
Otherwise, unity of invention might not be present. See 37 CFR 1.475 (c).
Accordingly, restriction is required under 35 U.S.C. 121 and 372 as the groupings outlined below do not fall under the aforementioned categories 1-5.
This application contains the following inventions or groups of inventions which are not so linked as to form a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1.
Group I, claim(s) 1-23, 32, drawn to Edge detection, classified in G06T7/13.
Group II, claim(s) 24 and 33, drawn to with different cup sizes, classified in A41C3/0092.
Group III, claim(s) 26 and 34, drawn to Devices for taking measurements on the human
body, classified in A41H1/02.
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, 4, 5, 6, 9, 22, 23 and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Ren US Patent Application Publication No. US-20250191200-A1 (hereinafter Ren) in view of Steve “A dynamic model of the breast during exercise” (hereinafter Steve) and Hyun “Measurement protocol of women’s nude breasts using a 3Dscanning technique” (hereinafter Hyun) and further in view of Addison US Patent Application Publication No. US-20190209046-A1 (hereinafter Addison).
Regarding claim 1, Ren discloses about a non-contact method for determining a boundary of breasts comprising (Ren in [0004] discloses, “generating a first representation of the first boundary of the pectoral muscle”): receiving, by a processor, a plurality of three-dimensional (3D) images, the plurality of 3D images being successive 3D images, the plurality of 3D images including the breasts of the same individual, where the 3D images are acquired while the individual is moving; receiving, by the processor, a three-dimensional (3D) image acquired while the individual is stationary (Ren in [0035] discloses, “As discussed above, breast tomosynthesis is a three-dimensional imaging technology that involves acquiring images of a stationary compressed breast at multiple angles during a short scan ... Because multiple images are captured over a period of time and used for a reconstruction, it is possible that the patient may move during a tomosynthesis imaging procedure”); defining a number of datapoints on the surface of the breasts in the 3D image acquired while the individual is stationary (Ren in [0045] discloses, “the boundary representation may be a curve defined by a function or a set of points within the image”); a displacement parameter based on the determined vertical displacement for each 3D image in the subset of 3D images with respect to the 3D image acquired when the individual is stationary for the same defined datapoint (Ren in [0049] discloses, “The distance (D) may also be measured from a midpoint on the vertical axis for each pair of boundary representations 301 - 315 . In some examples, the distance (D) is measured at multiple points along each of the boundary representations 301 – 315”. Additionally, Ren in [0035] discloses about imaging during moving and stationary position), generating a mapping based on the displacement parameter for each defined datapoint (Ren in [0021] discloses, “FIG. 3 C depicts a plot of distances between identified of pectoral muscle boundary representations in projection frames” wherein plot equates to mapping); and determining the boundary of the breasts using a threshold based on the mapping (Ren in [0073] discloses, “If any shift variance (S) is greater than the predetermined threshold, patient motion may be determined to have occurred. An average of the shift variance (S) values may also be compared to a predetermined threshold to determine whether patient motion occurred ... The warning may further indicate between which projection frames the motion occurred based on which boundary representation pair produced the large shift variance (S) value”).
Ren doesn’t disclose about the following limitation as further recited in the claim.
Steve discloses about a number of datapoints on a surface of an alignment region (Steve in [Section – 2, Paragraph – 2] discloses, “Passive, retro-reflective markers (hemi-spherical with a 5 mm radius) were taped to the right nipple, the superior border of the manubrium of the sternum (suprasternal notch) and the left and right anterior inferior aspect of the 10th ribs (Fig. 1)”); selecting a subset of the 3D images acquired while the individual is moving (Steve in [Section – 2, Paragraph – 2] discloses about acquiring 3D data while moving, “Treadmill speed was then increased to 10 km h-1 where the participant completed a further 2-min familiarization period, followed by 30 s of data capture. Markers were identified and 3D data reconstructed in the Qualisys Track Manager Software (Qualisys)”. Furthermore, Steve in [Section – 3, Paragraph – 3] discloses about subset, “Ten turning points were used to give a mean and standard deviation of ten values for each condition”); comparing the selected 3D image with the 3D image acquired when the individual is stationary by determining for each defined datapoint a vertical displacement; determining, for each defined datapoint (Steve in Fig. 1 and 2 discloses about vertical displacement , “Fig. 2 Displacement of the suprasternal notch and the nipple (relative to the suprasternal notch) of a runner at 10 km h-1 for a no bra”. Steve in [Section – 3, Paragraph – 5] further discloses, “Figure 2a shows that the vertical displacement of the body drives the breasts such that there is a time delay between the maximum displacement of the suprasternal notch and the nipple”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to integrate the technique of Steve into the system of Ren because it would allow the system to align the frames more accurately for determining the boundary.
Ren and Steve in the combination doesn’t disclose about the following limitation as further recited in the claim.
Hyun discloses about for each selected 3D image in the subset(Hyun in [Section – 2, Paragraph – 3] discloses, “if we measure the displacement from the original oblique view, the data contain distortions due to rotated angles. Therefore, the original image was aligned as in Fig. 1. Image ‘a’ in Fig. 1 gives us the integrated 3D view originally taken with the participant, while image ‘b’ gives us the final rotated image, from which suitable further metric measurements can be taken along each axis of x, y, and z. To do this rotation, we chose three basic points, front neck point, front center point, and two additional horizontal points, P1 and P2”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to integrate the technique of Hyun into the system of Ren in view of Steve because it would allow the system remove rotational noise resulting in spatially and directionally consistent selected 3D images.
Ren, Steve and Hyun in the combination doesn’t disclose about the following limitation as further recited in the claim.
Addison discloses about pre-processing the selected 3D image to at least remove image data outside a predetermined region (Addison in [0115] discloses, “the chest remains within the ROI while the arms are excluded”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to integrate the technique of Addison into the system of Ren in view of Steve and Hyun because it would allow the system to detect motion and boundary more accurately removing distracting and obstructing body parts.
Summary of Citations (Addison)
Paragraph [0115]; “the chest remains within the ROI while the arms are excluded”.
Summary of Citations (Ren)
Paragraph [0004]; “generating a first representation of the first boundary of the pectoral muscle”.
Paragraph [0021]; “FIG. 3 C depicts a plot of distances between identified of pectoral muscle boundary representations in projection frames”.
Paragraph [0035]; “As discussed above, breast tomosynthesis is a three-dimensional imaging technology that involves acquiring images of a stationary compressed breast at multiple angles during a short scan ... Because multiple images are captured over a period of time and used for a reconstruction, it is possible that the patient may move during a tomosynthesis imaging procedure”
Paragraph [0045]; “the boundary representation may be a curve defined by a function or a set of points within the image”.
Paragraph [0049]; “The distance (D) may also be measured from a midpoint on the vertical axis for each pair of boundary representations 301 - 315 . In some examples, the distance (D) is measured at multiple points along each of the boundary representations 301 – 315”.
Paragraph [0073]; “If any shift variance (S) is greater than the predetermined threshold, patient motion may be determined to have occurred. An average of the shift variance (S) values may also be compared to a predetermined threshold to determine whether patient motion occurred. If patient motion is identified in operation 456 , a motion warning may be generated ... The warning may further indicate between which projection frames the motion occurred based on which boundary representation pair produced the large shift variance (S) value”.
Summary of Citations (Steve)
[Section – 2, Paragraph – 2]; “Passive, retro-reflective markers (hemi-spherical with a 5 mm radius) were taped to the right nipple, the superior border of the manubrium of the sternum (suprasternal notch) and the left and right anterior inferior aspect of the 10th ribs (Fig. 1) ... marker coordinates were recorded for 30 s. Treadmill speed was then increased to 10 km h-1 where the participant completed a further 2-min familiarization period, followed by 30 s of data capture. Markers were identified and 3D data reconstructed in the Qualisys Track Manager Software (Qualisys)”.
[Section – 3, Paragraph – 3]; “Ten turning points were used to give a mean and standard deviation of ten values for each condition”.
[Section – 3, Paragraph – 5]; “Figure 2a shows that the vertical displacement of the body drives the breasts such that there is a time delay between the maximum displacement of the suprasternal notch and the nipple”.
Summary of Citations (Hyun)
[Section – 2, Paragraph – 3]; “if we measure the displacement from the original oblique view, the data contain distortions due to rotated angles. Therefore, the original image was aligned as in Fig. 1. Image ‘a’ in Fig. 1 gives us the integrated 3D view originally taken with the participant, while image ‘b’ gives us the final rotated image, from which suitable further metric measurements can be taken along each axis of x, y, and z. To do this rotation, we chose three basic points, front neck point, front center point, and two additional horizontal points, P1 and P2”.
Regarding claim 4, Hyun in the combination discloses the non-contact method of claim 1, wherein the predetermined region includes the torso (Hyun in [Section – 2, Paragraph – 3] discloses, “Four 3D landmarks were also used on the shoulder line and side waistline as shown in Fig. 1”) and the pre-processing further comprises identifying an underbust level and bust point for each breast (Hyun in [Section – 3.2, Paragraph – 4] discloses, “For the precise pointing of BP, care should be taken to select the center of BP correctly”. Additionally, Hyun in [Section – 3.2, Paragraph – 2] discloses about underbust point, “BBP, which is defined as the minimum point in the x profile in this study”) and removing image data below the identified underbust level (Hyun in [Section – 3.3, Paragraph – 1] discloses, “Breast bulk was separated from the bony thorax to parameterize breast base and volume”).
Summary of Citations (Hyun)
[Section – 2, Paragraph – 3]; “Four 3D landmarks were also used on the shoulder line and side waistline as shown in Fig. 1”.
[Section – 3.2, Paragraph – 2]; “BBP, which is defined as the minimum point in the x profile in this study”.
[Section – 3.2, Paragraph – 4]; “For the precise pointing of BP, care should be taken to select the center of BP correctly”.
[Section – 3.3, Paragraph – 1]; “Breast bulk was separated from the bony thorax to parameterize breast base and volume”.
Regarding claim 5, Hyun in the combination discloses the non-contact method of claim 1, wherein the alignment region is at an upper back area of the individual (Hyun in [Section – 2, Paragraph – 3] and Fig. 1 discloses about aligning with back of shoulder (upper back), “The neck, the back of the shoulder, the waist, and both hands were supported to prevent any sway of the posture”).
Summary of Citations (Hyun)
[Section – 2, Paragraph – 3]; “The neck, the back of the shoulder, the waist, and both hands were supported to prevent any sway of the posture”.
Regarding claim 6, Hyun in the combination discloses the non-contact method of claim 5, wherein the aligning comprises minimizing a shape discrepancy between each selected 3D image (Hyun in [Section – 2, Paragraph – 3] discloses, “if we measure the displacement from the original oblique view, the data contain distortions due to rotated angles. Therefore, the original image was aligned as in Fig. 1”) and the 3D image acquired while the individual is stationary by iteratively moving a selected 3D image (Hyun in [Section – 2, Paragraph – 3] discloses, “To do this rotation, we chose three basic points, front neck point, front center point, and two additional horizontal points, P1 and P2”) and calculating the shape discrepancy (Hyun in [Section – 2, Paragraph – 3] discloses, “Displacement in x, y, or z directions gives us the relative position of ratio, so it is useful to get an idea of the body type”).
Summary of Citations (Hyun)
[Section – 2, Paragraph – 3]; “Displacement in x, y, or z directions gives us the relative position of ratio, so it is useful to get an idea of the body type. However, if we measure the displacement from the original oblique view, the data contain distortions due to rotated angles. Therefore, the original image was aligned as in Fig. 1 ... To do this rotation, we chose three basic points, front neck point, front center point, and two additional horizontal points, P1 and P2”.
Regarding claim 9, Addison in the combination discloses the non-contact method of claim 1, wherein the pre-processing further comprises determining whether another body part is covering a surface of the breast and torso region and in response to determining that another body part is covering a surface of the breast or torso region, removing image data associated with the another body part (Addison in [0115] discloses, “both FIGS. 15 and 16, the chest remains within the ROI while the arms are excluded”) and filling in a space corresponding to the removed image data with surface image points predicted for the space to maintain a curvature with a surrounding surface of the breast or maintain the curvature of the torso region (Addison in [0139] discloses “the obscured region is reconstructed using the initial 3D mesh. The estimated 3D surface can be performed by comparing the unobscured regions with the 3D calibration scan, and re-mapping the obscured regions after obtaining the best morphological transform of the current position of the body” wherein reconstruction equates to filling in a space and ‘obtaining the best morphological transform’ implies to maintaining a curvature. Additionally, [0015] discloses that the region of interest in the chest area (breast)).
Summary of Citations (Addison)
Paragraph [0115]; “both FIGS. 15 and 16, the chest remains within the ROI while the arms are excluded”.
Paragraph [0139]; “the obscured region is reconstructed using the initial 3D mesh. The estimated 3D surface can be performed by comparing the unobscured regions with the 3D calibration scan, and re-mapping the obscured regions after obtaining the best morphological transform of the current position of the body”.
Regarding claim 22, Ren in the combination discloses the non-contact method of claim 1, further comprising displaying the mapping (Ren discloses plot (mapping) in Fig. 3C).
Regarding claim 23, Addison in the combination discloses the non-contact method of claim 22, further comprising removing image data from the 3D image acquired when the individual is stationary based on the threshold and displaying a 3D image of the breasts (Addison in [0113] discloses, “A depth tolerance range can be defined relative to the seed point's depth from the camera: a low tolerance defines the closest allowed pixel, and a high tolerance defines the furthest allowed pixel to be included in the ROI ... in this particular instance, regions of the patient's body which are not of as great an interest for a respiratory signal (e.g., head, arms) may also be included if they also fall within the same specified depth range. Such regions can be excluded from the ROI if they do not exhibit respiratory modulations”).
Summary of Citations (Addison)
Paragraph [0113]; “A depth tolerance range can be defined relative to the seed point's depth from the camera: a low tolerance defines the closest allowed pixel, and a high tolerance defines the furthest allowed pixel to be included in the ROI ... in this particular instance, regions of the patient's body which are not of as great an interest for a respiratory signal (e.g., head, arms) may also be included if they also fall within the same specified depth range. Such regions can be excluded from the ROI if they do not exhibit respiratory modulations”.
Regarding claim 32, claim 32, which is similar in scope to claim 1, thus rejected under the same rationale.
Claims 2, 3 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Ren in view of Steve, Hyun and Addison further in view of Joanna “Breast Displacement in Three Dimensions During the Walking and Running Gait Cycles” (hereinafter Joanna).
Regarding claim 2, Ren in the combination discloses the non-contact method of claim 1.
Ren, Steve, Hyun and Addison in the combination doesn’t disclose about the following limitation as further recited in the claim.
Joanna discloses about the subset of 3D images comprises 3D images showing at least one complete gait cycle (Joanna in [Page - 323, right side paragraph – 1] discloses, “marker coordinates were recorded during five treadmill gait cycles at 5 kph”) and wherein the subset of 3D images comprises at least a predetermined number of 3D images (Joanna in [Page - 323, right side paragraph – 2] discloses, “Three-dimensional displacement of the markers was tracked using five 100-Hz calibrated ProReflex Infrared cameras (Qualisys, Sweden) positioned around the treadmill”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to integrate the technique of Joanna into the system of Ren in view of Steve, Hyun and Addison because the system could focus on relevant window of movement eliminating the influence of irrelevant motion cycles.
Summary of Citations (Joanna)
[Page - 323, right side paragraph – 1]; “marker coordinates were recorded during five treadmill gait cycles at 5 kph”.
[Page - 323, right side paragraph – 2]; “Three-dimensional displacement of the markers was tracked using five 100-Hz calibrated ProReflex Infrared cameras (Qualisys, Sweden) positioned around the treadmill”.
Regarding claim 3,
Joanna in the combination further discloses about the subset of 3D images comprises 3D images acquired after a preset number of 3D images and before a preset number of 3D images (Joanna in [Page - 323, right side paragraph – 1] discloses, “the left and right anterior superior iliac spines (ASIS). Following a 2-min familiarization period, marker coordinates were recorded during five treadmill gait cycles at 5 kph”).
Summary of Citations (Joanna)
[Page – 323, right side paragraph – 1]; “the left and right anterior superior iliac spines (ASIS). Following a 2-min familiarization period, marker coordinates were recorded during five treadmill gait cycles at 5 kph”.
Regarding claim 13, Ren in the combination discloses about the non-contact method of claim 1, wherein the threshold is determined based on a range of the displacement parameter (Ren in [0073] discloses, “If any shift variance (S) is greater than the predetermined threshold, patient motion may be determined to have occurred”).
Joanna in the combination additionally discloses about a preset percentage (Joanna in [Page – 328, Paragraph – 3] discloses, “Vertical displacement accounted for an average of 56% of overall breast dis- placement during treadmill walking and running”).
Summary of Citations (Ren)
Paragraph [0073]; “If any shift variance (S) is greater than the predetermined threshold, patient motion may be determined to have occurred. An average of the shift variance (S) values may also be compared to a predetermined threshold to determine whether patient motion occurred”.
Summary of Citations (Joanna)
[Page – 328, Paragraph – 3]; “Vertical displacement accounted for an average of 56% of overall breast dis- placement during treadmill walking and running”.
Claims 7, 8, 12, 17, 18, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Ren in view of Steve, Hyun and Addison further in view of Pei “A novel method to assess breast shape and breast asymmetry” (hereinafter Pei).
Regarding claim 7, Ren in the combination discloses the non-contact method of claim 1.
Ren, Steve, Hyun and Addison in the combination doesn’t disclose about the following limitation as further recited in the claim.
Pei discloses the defining a number of datapoints on the surface of the breasts comprises: partitioning, by the processor, each breast into vertical slices (Pei in [Section – 3.1, Paragraph – 1] discloses, “slices between the left and right breasts (maximum: 0.48 mm, median: 0.016 mm)”); partitioning, by the processor, each vertical slice into a plurality of portions on the surface of the respective breast based on a fixed angular interval, wherein each portion corresponds to an angle value, and each portion includes a set of points; for each portion on each slice: determining, by the processor, an average distance among distances of the set of points with respect to one of the associated reference points for a corresponding vertical slice (Pei in [Section – 3.2, Paragraph – 1] discloses, “Because of the width of the irregular ring, which depends on 1he thickness of the slice, there are multiple points with various radial distances at the same angle on the same ring/layer. Among those points, the point that has median radial distance can be found, and can be considered as 1he vertex point at this angle on this layer. Hence, the vertex points at the following angles were found for each layer: Ci°, 30', 60°, 90°, 120'', l 50°, 180", 210°, 240', 270°, 300'', and 330°”); and setting, by the processor, a point associated with the average distance as a datapoint represented by the angle value corresponding to the portion, where the datapoint is one of the number of datapoints identified (Pei in [Section – 3.2, Paragraph – 1] discloses, “an averaged web was crea1ed for each subject by averaging every pair of corresponding vertex points on the web structures of the right and left breasts. One spider web can contain a maximum of 132 points (11 slices, 12 angles)”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to integrate the technique of Pei into the system of Ren in view of Steve, Hyun and Addison because the system it would allow consistent measurement of displacement.
Summary of Citations (Pei)
[Section – 3.1, Paragraph – 1]; “slices between the left and right breasts (maximum: 0.48 mm, median: 0.016 mm)”.
[Section – 3.2, Paragraph – 1]; “Because of the width of the irregular ring, which depends on 1he thickness of the slice, there are multiple points with various radial distances at the same angle on the same ring/layer. Among those points, 1he point that has median radial distance can be found, and can be considered as 1he vertex point at this angle on this layer. Hence, the vertex points at the following angles were found for each layer: Ci°, 30', 60°, 90°, 120'', l 50°, 180", 210°, 240', 270°, 300'', and 330°”.
[Section – 3.2, Paragraph – 1]; “an averaged web was crea1ed for each subject by averaging every pair of corresponding vertex points on the web structures of the right and left breasts. One spider web can contain a maximum of 132 points (11 slices, 12 angles)”.
Regarding claim 8, Pei in the combination discloses the non-contact method of claim 7, wherein the defining a number of datapoints on the surface of the breasts further comprises: determining, an absence of image points in particular portions in the vertical slices (Pei in [Section – 3.2, Paragraph – 1] discloses, “the adjacent vertex points on the same layer were connected except for missing points due to the fact that the body contour drops away from the lower slices at certain locations for some participants”), wherein the absent image points are removed from the selected 3D image during the pre-processing (Pei in [Section – 5, Paragraph – 1] discloses, “To reduce the number of points on the slices, and to simplify calculations, the contour maps were converted into spider web structures: points that do not lie on the auxiliary lines were removed”); and assigning a set of undefined values to the absent image points in the particular portion as datapoints (Pei in [Section – 3.2, Paragraph – 1] discloses, “One spider web can contain a maximum of 132 points (11 slices, 12 angles). Therefore, there is a maximum of 132 pairs of points (null points can exist)”).
Summary of Citations (Pei)
[Section – 3.2, Paragraph – 1]; “the adjacent vertex points on the same layer were connected except for missing points due to the fact that the body contour drops away from the lower slices at certain locations for some participants”.
[Section – 5, Paragraph – 1]; “To reduce the number of points on the slices, and to simplify calculations, the contour maps were converted into spider web structures: points that do not lie on the auxiliary lines were removed”.
[Section – 3.2, Paragraph – 1]; “One spider web can contain a maximum of 132 points (11 slices, 12 angles). Therefore, there is a maximum of 132 pairs of points (null points can exist)”.
Regarding claim 12, Pei in the combination disclose the non-contact method of claim 7, wherein the vertical slices are parallel to coronal plane (Pei discloses the vertical slice line parallel to coronal plane in Figure. 2).
Regarding claim 17,
Pei in the combination further discloses determining a first average value of image points in the predetermined region in a first direction, the first direction being orthogonal to a longitudinal axis of the individual (Pei in Fig. 2 discloses about slicing across XY plane which is orthogonal to the Z-axis (longitudinal). Additionally, Pei in [Section – 3, Paragraph – 2] discloses, “The central axis of the torso was determined by averaging the x-coordinates and y-coordinates respectively of all the points on the torso. The scans were shifted SO that their central axis was at x=0 and y=0 (Cartesian coordinate system)”); determining a second average value of image points in the predetermined region in a second direction orthogonal to the first direction and orthogonal to the longitudinal axis of the individual (Pei in Fig. 1 and Fig. 2 discloses constantly define coordinate system wherein Z is the longitudinal axis with X and Y are orthogonal to Z. Furthermore, the equation (1) below fig. 1 and [Section – 3.3, Paragraph – 3] discloses about calculating average value of image points, “where N is the number of non-null points, (X1, Yᵢ) is the averaged location of the 4th pair of non-null points”); and defining a central axis of the predetermined region as intersecting by the first average value and the second average value and parallel to the longitudinal axis of the individual (Pei discloses about defining central axis in [Section – 3.1, Paragraph – 1]; “Slicing was done perpendicular to this bust point to central axis line, starting from the origin towards the anterior of the breast. The parallel lines in Figure 2 rep- resent the lines of slice. Each breast was sliced 30 times, creating 31 slices with equal thickness”. Furthermore, Section – 3.3 discloses Origin of the spider web defined from the average X and Y. Lastly, Pei in Fig. 1 and Fig. 2 discloses about Z axis as longitudinal axis).
Summary of Citations (Pei)
[Section – 3, Paragraph – 2]; “The central axis of the torso was determined by averaging the x-coordinates and y-coordinates respectively of all the points on the torso. The scans were shifted SO that their central axis was at x=0 and y=0 (Cartesian coordinate system)”.
[Section – 3.1, Paragraph – 1]; “Slicing was done perpendicular to this bust point to central axis line, starting from the origin towards the anterior of the breast. The parallel lines in Figure 2 rep- resent the lines of slice. Each breast was sliced 30 times, cre- ating 31 slices with equal thickness”.
[Section – 3.3, Paragraph – 3]; “where N is the number of non-null points, (X1, Yᵢ) is the averaged location of the 4th pair of non-null points, with (Xiright) Yiright) being the right-side point and Yileft) being the left-side point. (in this calculation, the Cartesian coord- inate system is used”.
Regarding claim 18, Pei in the combination discloses the non-contact method of claim 17, wherein the pre-processing further comprises shifting the selected 3D image such that the central axis intersects an origin (Pei in [Section – 3, Paragraph – 2] discloses, “The central axis of the torso was determined by averaging the x-coordinates and y-coordinates respectively of all the points on the torso. The scans were shifted SO that their central axis was at x=0 and y=0 (Cartesian coordinate system)”).
Summary of Citations (Pei)
[Section – 3, Paragraph – 2]; “The central axis of the torso was determined by averaging the x-coordinates and y-coordinates respectively of all the points on the torso. The scans were shifted SO that their central axis was at x=0 and y=0 (Cartesian coordinate system)”.
Regarding claim 19, claim 19 is claim 7 except for the vertical slices being parallel to the sagittal plane; the first direction being orthogonal to a longitudinal axis of the individual and parallel to the sagittal plane, thus the rejection of claim 7 is incorporated herein. With respect to the addition limitation, reference Pei in Fig. 2 discloses about vertical slice parallel to sagittal plane. Furthermore, Pei in [Section – 3.2, Paragraph – 1] discloses about 0°, 30°, 60°, 90°, 120° ... angular direction (first direction) drawn in the X-Y plane orthogonal to Z axis (longitudinal) disclosed in fig. 1 and 2.
Summary of Citations (Pei)
[Section – 3.2, Paragraph – 1]; “angular coordinate (the angle with respect to the x-axis). Because of the width of the irregular ring, the vertex points at the following angles were found for each layer: 0°, 30°, 60°, 90°, 120°, 150°, 180°, 210°, 240°, 270°, 300°, and 330°”.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10, 11, 14 – 16, 20, 21 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter.
Regarding claim 10, the prior art references taken individually or in combination fail to particularly disclose, fairly suggest, or render obvious the limitations as further recited. The applied prior arts Ren, Steve, Hyun, Pei and Joanna doesn’t disclose the limitation, the vertical displacement is determined using
d
j
=
z
i
j
-
z
i
0
where
d
j
is an array containing the vertical displacements of all the defined datapoints for the jth 3D image, where j is
1
≤
j
≤
N
, where N is the number of 3D images in the subset,
z
i
j
is the z-coordinate of the i-th defined datapoint of that jth 3D image
1
≤
j
≤
M
, where M is the number of defined datapoints, while
z
i
0
is the z-coordinate of the i-th point of the 3D image acquired while the same individual is stationary. Joanna discloses about using markers to determine vertical displacement of the breast but it fails to disclose about indexed z subtraction and arrays across multiple 3D image.
Regarding claim 11, claim 11 is allowed by virtually being dependent upon claim 10.
Regarding claim 14, the prior art references taken individually or in combination fail to particularly disclose, fairly suggest, or render obvious the limitations as further recited. The applied prior arts Ren, Steve, Hyun, Pei and Joanna doesn’t disclose the limitation, threshold is determined by obtained from an average of the displacement parameters in a first region and subtracting an average of the displacement parameters in a second region and multiplying by the preset percentage. Ren in [0050] and [0052] discloses about determining average of the displacement parameter and subtracting an average of the displacement parameters but fails to disclose about multiplying with preset percentage.
Summary of Citations (Ren)
Paragraph [0050]; “the motion score may be based on the difference between each pair of boundary representations for a tomosynthesis imaging procedure ... The motion score may also be based on an average of the determined differences”.
Paragraph [0052]; “the shift variance (S) represented in the plot 318 is the distance between the data point for eleventh distance 331 and the curve 320 . The shift variance (S) between the respective data points and the curve 320 may be calculated based on the distance (D) measured for the projection frame pair number and the distance (D) of the curve 320 at the projection frame pair number”.
Regarding claim 15 and 16, claim 15 and 16 is allowed by virtually being dependent upon claim 14.
Regarding claim 20, the prior art references taken individually or in combination fail to particularly disclose, fairly suggest, or render obvious the limitations as further recited. The applied prior arts Ren, Steve, Hyun, Pei and Joanna doesn’t disclose the limitation, identifying, for each vertical slice, the specific value having the displacement parameter closest to the threshold and identifying a median specific value among the identified specific values, Pei in [Section – 3.2, Paragraph – 1] discloses about median of a radius and Ren discloses about displacement parameter but it fails to disclose about median of a boundary specific values chosen via threshold.
Summary of Citations (Pei)
[Section – 3.2, Paragraph – 1]; “Because of the width of the irregular ring, which depends on 1he thickness of the slice, there are multiple points with various radial distances at the same angle on the same ring/layer. Among those points, the point that has median radial distance can be found, and can be considered as the vertex point at this angle on this layer. Hence, the vertex points at the following angles were found for each layer: Ci°, 30', 60°, 90°, 120'', l 50°, 180", 210°, 240', 270°, 300'', and 330°”.
Regarding claim 21, claim 21 is allowed by virtually being dependent upon claim 20.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner
should be directed to ZAID MUHAMMAD SALEH whose telephone number is (703)756-1684.
The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 am - 5 pm ET. 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, Vu Le can be
reached on (571)272-7332. 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.
/ZAID MUHAMMAD SALEH/
Examiner, Art Unit 2668
01/20/2025
/VU LE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2668