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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/18/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding applicant’s argument for claim 1, on page 7, that Lang does not disclose calculating a pixel connectivity property comprising an area or a centroid, examiner disagrees. Various methods of determining neighboring pixels/voxels are disclosed (i.e. 6, 18, 26 connected) as “local criteria” used to analyze (i.e. “calculate”) the classification of each voxel in a region of interest. A central pixel with all surrounding neighbors calculated according to the criteria (6, 18, 26, etc.) is at the very least an “area” (a very broad term) and also a “centroid” as the central pixel is by definition at the center of a shape of it and its neighbors. Therefore the argument is overcome and the rejection remains.
Regarding applicant’s argument for claim 1, on page 7, that Lang does not disclose obtaining a bounding shape and its coordinates, examiner disagrees. The very well recognized definition of an image segmentation is essentially “partitioning an image into regions” which cannot be accomplished without assigning each pixel/voxel (i.e. “coordinates”) to a region thereby creating shapes according to however the classification is performed. However, even if the basic definition of an image segmentation did not disclose bounding shapes (which examiner does not agree), Lang specifically teaches the creation of a vascular tree (i.e. a bounding shape) according to the classification of each and every pixel/voxel (i.e. coordinates of said shape). Therefore the argument is overcome and the previous rejection remains.
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.
1) Claim(s) 1, 10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. patent application publication 2021/0137634 by Lang.
2) Regarding claim 1, Lang teaches a computer-implemented method for identifying a high contrast or highly attenuating object in medical imaging data, comprising: generating an image from scan data acquired during a non-diagnostic scan utilizing a computed tomography (CT) scanner (paragraph 293; image data can be obtained from a scout scan); performing object segmentation based on pixel connectivity on the image to generate segmented regions (paragraphs 1027-1029; segmentation can occur based upon voxel connectivity); calculating pixel connectivity properties of the segmented regions, wherein the pixel connectivity properties comprise one or more of area, centroid, orientation, circularity, and eccentricity (paragraph 1029; various methods of determining neighboring pixels/voxels are disclosed [i.e. 6, 18, 26 connected] as “local criteria” used to analyze [i.e. “calculate”] the classification of each voxel in a region of interest, a central pixel with all surrounding neighbors calculated according to the criteria [6, 18, 26, etc.] is at the very least an “area” [a very broad term] and also a “centroid” as the central pixel is by definition at the center of a shape of it and its neighbors); and obtaining respective bounding shape coordinates and area for bounding shapes of the segmented regions (paragraph 1028; different structures are segmented, creation of a vascular tree [i.e. a bounding shape] according to the classification of each and every pixel/voxel [i.e. coordinates of said shape] is disclosed).
3) Regarding claim 10, Lang teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the non-diagnostic scan is a calibration scan (paragraph 293; scout scan is a calibration scan).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
5) Claim(s) 2, 3 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. patent application publication 2021/0137634 by Lang as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. patent application publication 2022/0207722 by Kim et al. and further in view of U.S. patent 8,891,847 by Helm et al.
6) Regarding claim 2, Lang does not specifically teach the computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising: designating a first bounding shape of the bounding shapes as a subject bounding shape for a subject scanned during the non-diagnostic scan; identifying a non-overlapping region from the segmented regions having the high contrast or highly attenuating object when present; determining whether the non-overlapping region when present is within or outside the subject bounding shape; and generating a composite image with the subject bounding shape and a second bounding shape for the non-overlapping region when present overlaid on the image, wherein each bounding shape overlaid on the image is color-coded to indicate a status of each bounding shape.
Kim teaches designating a first bounding shape of the bounding shapes as a subject bounding shape for a subject scanned during the non-diagnostic scan; identifying a non-overlapping region from the segmented regions; determining whether the non-overlapping region when present is within or outside the subject bounding shape; and generating a composite image with the subject bounding shape and a second bounding shape for the non-overlapping region when present overlaid on the image (figure 30; paragraph 661; system determines whether an artifact overlaps a region of interest and displays a segmentation of the regions), wherein each bounding shape overlaid on the image is color-coded to indicate a status of each bounding shape (paragraph 491; regions of segmentation can be color coded).
Lang and Kim are combinable because they are both from the medical imaging field of endeavor.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to combine Lang with Kim to add determining an artifact overlaps an ROI. The motivation for doing so would have been to determine a reliability of a disease diagnosis (paragraph 661).
Helm teaches region from the segmented regions having the high contrast or highly attenuating object when present (column 3, lines 24-37 and column 9, line 66 – column 10, line 1; voxel regions with highly attenuating objects can be recognized and individually colored [column 10, line 52]).
NOTE: the detected artifact in Kim could be the highly attenuating object taught by Helm.
Lang and Helm are combinable because they are both from the medical imaging field of endeavor.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to combine Lang with Helm to add determining highly attenuating region. The motivation for doing so would have been to avoid scatter leading to image artifacts (column 3, lines 32-33).
Therefore it would have been obvious to combine Lang, Kim and Helm to obtain the invention of claim 2.
7) Regarding claim 3, Kim (as combined with Lang in the rejection of claim 2 above) teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 2, wherein the subject bounding shape is color-coded a first color to indicate that the image does not contain any high contrast or highly attenuating object and no further action is required related to any high contrast or highly attenuating object (paragraphs 491 and 652; in the case of no overlap [or no artifact existence], regions can be individually colored as disclosed).
8) Regarding claim 9, Lang teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 2, wherein the non-diagnostic scan is a scout scan (paragraph 293; a CT scout scan).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-6 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 4, the prior art does not contain a valid combination of references that specifically discloses a method for generating a non-diagnostic CT image, performing object segmentation based upon characterized pixel connectivity, obtaining bounding shapes of the segmented regions, designating a first bounding shape as a subject bounding shape, identifying a non-overlapping region from the segmentations having a high contrast or highly attenuating object, determining whether the object is within the subject bounding shape, generating a composite image with the subject bounding shape and a second bounding shape of the object with each shape color coded to indicate a status, wherein the subject bounding shape is coded to a first color to indicate no detected highly attenuating objects and is coded to a different second color when a highly attenuating object is detected. Similar prior art such as U.S. patent application publication 2022/0207722 by Kim et al. determines an overlapping artifact with a region of interest and color codes each segmentation according to a status/type, but fails to disclose a second different color for the region of interest based upon detection of an artifact within the image.
Claims 5 and 6 are objected to because they depend upon claim 4.
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 BENJAMIN O DULANEY whose telephone number is (571)272-2874. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 10-6.
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, Abderrahim Merouan can be reached at (571)270-5254. 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.
BENJAMIN O. DULANEY
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2676
/BENJAMIN O DULANEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2683