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 .
Applicant’s response to the Non-final Office Action dated 07/31/2025, filed with the office on 10/31/2025, has been entered and made of record.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment of the claims does not overcome the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections. Therefore, the rejections of record under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) are maintained.
5. Applicant’s amendment of the claims does not overcome the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections for reciting an abstract idea. Therefore, the rejections of record under 35 U.S.C. 101 are maintained.
In light of Applicant’s amendments, the rejection of record under 35 U.S.C. 101 with respect to claim 16 for reciting a non-statutory subject matter has been withdrawn. Please note: the rejection for reciting an abstract idea is maintained.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-16 are pending. Claims 1, 3, 5, and 10-16 are amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on October 31, 2025 with respect to rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. 103 has been fully considered; but they are not found persuasive. Specifically, in page 8-9 of its reply, Applicant argues that automated functions performed by machine learning algorithms are different than an analyst performing them manually, and since automating the functions reduce user efforts, the claims are directed to a practical application. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims do not clearly recite an automated algorithm such as machine learning, deep learning, neural network etc. performing the claimed functions. Therefore, Applicant’s arguments are not found persuasive.
Applicant’s amendment of independent Claims 1, 15 and 16, which has altered the scope of the claims of the instant application, has necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this office action with respect to claims of the instant application. Accordingly, in response to Applicant’s arguments that are merely directed to the amended portion of the claims, new analyses have been presented below, which make Applicant’s arguments moot.
Consequently, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL.
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.
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: “display unit” in claims 3 and 5, and “computer” in claim 16.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, these are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structures described in the applicant’s drawings: algorithms (flow charts) depicted in Fig. 1 and applicant’s specification: page 8, third paragraph: “the display 140 is a liquid crystal display, a cathode ray tube (CRT) display, or the like” and page 8, fifth paragraph: “The processing circuitry 150 is a processor that reads the computer programs from the storage circuitry 120 and executes the read computer programs, thereby implementing functions corresponding to the executed computer programs” as performing the claimed functions, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations 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 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential steps, such omission amounting to a gap between the steps. See MPEP § 2172.01. Specifically, independent claim 1 recites “determine, for each region of the blood vessel, a degree of certainty”. The claim language does not clearly define any blood vessel regions. Independent claims 15 and 16 are also rejected for similar reasons. In addition, dependent claims 2-14 are also rejected for depending on a rejected base claim.
Claim 13 is 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. Specifically, dependent claim 13 recites “a blood vessel core line”, wherein, independent claim 1 also recites “a blood vessel core line”.
Claim 16 is 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. Specifically, Claim 16 recites “the target organ is a blood vessel”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the target organ” in the claims.
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 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Independent claims 1, 15 and 16 respectively recite an apparatus, a method and a computer program product that detects a blood vessel in medical image. With respect to analysis of independent claims 1, 15 and 16:
Step 1:
With regard to Step 1, the instant claims 1, 15 and 16 are directed to an apparatus, a method and a computer program product. Therefore, the claim is directed to one of the statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong One:
With regard to 2A, Prong One, the limitations of “acquiring medical image data”, “extracting a blood vessel”, “estimating a structure of the blood vessel depicted in the medical image data”, “determining, for each region of the blood vessel, a degree of certainty representing accuracy of an estimation result… wherein the degree of certainty is an index representing an accuracy” and “defining a region where editing of the estimation result by a user is restricted, on the basis of the degree of certainty”5 as drafted, recite an abstract idea, such as a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind of a person, i.e., concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion). That is, an analyst reviewing acquired medical images can estimate a structure of a blood vessel core line and a vessel wall, determine a degree of certainty of their estimation by using an index representing an accuracy, and define a region where editing is restricted based on the accuracy of the detection. This is the concept that falls under the grouping of abstract ideas mental processes, i.e., a concept performed in the human mind, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion of an analyst.
Step 2A, Prong Two:
The 2019 PEG defines the phrase “evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception”. Therefore, additional elements, or a combination of additional elements in the claim, are required to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception. In the instant case, the additional elements/limitations in the claims, i.e., a processor is merely regarded as adding insignificant extra-solution activities to the judicial exception, and do not apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception as an indication of integration of the judicial exception into a practical application. Accordingly, the above-mentioned additional elements/limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application; and therefore, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2B:
Because the claims fail under Step 2A, the claims are further evaluated under Step 2B. The claims herein do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, because as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into practical application, the additional elements/limitations to perform the steps, amount to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity. Mere program instructions to apply an exception using generic components cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, claims 1, 15 and 16 are not patent eligible.
Further, with regard to dependent claims 2-14 viewed individually, these additional steps, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations as an abstract idea, and do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 2, 8, 9, 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamarneh et al. (US 2014/0198979 A1) in view of Paraketsov et al. (US 2022/0079714 A1) and in further view of Ishii et al. (US 2017/0224300 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Hamarneh teaches, An image processing apparatus (Hamarneh, ¶0002: “apparatus for guiding user intervention in semi-automatic image segmentation”) comprising a processor, wherein the processor is configured to (Hamarneh, ¶0018: “a processor executing the code to perform the methods described”) acquire medical image data, (Hamarneh, ¶0015: “obtaining an initial segmentation of the 3D image data”) extract a blood vessel that includes one of a blood vessel core line and a blood vessel wall from the medical image data, estimate a structure of a blood vessel depicted in the medical image data, determine, for each region of the blood vessel, (Hamarneh, ¶0015: “segmenting 3D image data, the method including obtaining an initial segmentation of the 3D image data, and for each of a plurality of image regions”) a degree of certainty representing accuracy of an estimation result of the structure of the blood vessel depicted in the medical image data, (Hamarneh, ¶0015: “associating a segmentation uncertainty indicator for the initial image segmentation with the image region and assigning a strength to the segmentation uncertainty indicator”) and wherein, the degree of certainty is an index representing an accuracy of the extracted one of the (Hamarneh, ¶0131: “uncertainty values may be calculated and stored (e.g. in a look up table) in manner that they may be indexed by their respective coordinates”). However, Hamarneh does not explicitly teach, extract a blood vessel that includes one of a blood vessel core line and a blood vessel wall from the medical image data, estimate a structure of a blood vessel depicted in the medical image data and define a region where editing of the estimation result by a user is restricted, on the basis of the degree of certainty.
In an analogous field of endeavor, Ishii teaches, extract a blood vessel that includes (Ishii, ¶0034: “analysis using a medical image (e.g., three-dimensional CT image data) including blood vessels”) one of a blood vessel core line (Ishii, ¶0039: “a core line of the blood vessel”) and a blood vessel wall from the medical image data, (Ishi, ¶0039: “distance from the core line to the inner wall and the distance from the core line to the outer wall”) estimate a structure of a blood vessel depicted in the medical image data (Ishii, ¶0038: “extraction function 352 extracts time-series blood vessel shape data indicating the shape of a blood vessel from the three-dimensional CT image data”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hamarneh using the teachings of Ishii to introduce extracting a blood vessel core line and blood vessel wall from a medical image to estimate a shape of the blood vessel. A person skilled in the art would be motivated to combine the known elements as described above and achieve the predictable result of detailed reconstruction of a blood vessel. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the analogous arts Hamarneh and Ishii to obtain the above-described limitations in claim 1. However, the combination of Hamarneh and Ishii does not explicitly teach, define a region where editing of the estimation result by a user is restricted, on the basis of the degree of certainty.
In another analogous field of endeavor, Paraketsov teaches, and define a region where editing of the estimation result by a user is restricted, (Paraketsov, ¶0108: “locking the related teeth/region in the user interface to prevent the user, e.g., technician, dental professional, etc., from modifying the related teeth, gingiva and/or region”) on the basis of the degree of certainty. (Paraketsov, ¶0022: “locking in the regions or features… that are verified”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hamarneh in view of Ishii using the teachings of Paraketsov to introduce a region locking mechanism. A person skilled in the art would be motivated to combine the known elements as described above and achieve the predictable result of preventing a user from editing a verified region. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the analogous arts Hamarneh, Ishii and Paraketsov to obtain the invention in claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, Hamarneh in view of Ishii and in further view of Paraketsov teaches, The image processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processor causes at least information indicating whether the editing is necessary or information representing a region where the editing is restricted to be displayed on a display image based on the medical image data. (Hamarneh, ¶0016: “a display operatively coupled to the controller, and a user interface operatively coupled to the controller. The controller is configured to obtain an initial segmentation of the 3D image data. The uncertainty indicator generator is configured to, for each of a plurality of image regions, associate a segmentation uncertainty indicator for the initial image segmentation with the image region and assign a strength to the segmentation uncertainty indicator”).
Regarding claim 8, Hamarneh in view of Ishii and in further view of Paraketsov teaches, The image processing apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the information indicating whether the editing is necessary is a numerical value or classification (Hamarneh, ¶0129: “Segmentation 234 may be expressed as a segmentation classifier y(x) defined over the set of coordinates”) representing a degree of recommendation for editing. (Hamarneh, ¶0008: “segmentation techniques can be characterized by the degree of user interaction they require”).
Regarding claim 9, Hamarneh in view of Ishii and in further view of Paraketsov teaches, The image processing apparatus according to claim 8, wherein the numerical value representing the degree of recommendation for editing is the degree of certainty or a numerical value calculated from the degree of certainty by a conversion process. (Hamarneh, ¶0007: “assign every voxel in a 3D image a probability value in the range of 0 to 1 to indicate that probability that the voxel belongs to a particular object”).
Regarding claim 15, it recites a method with steps corresponding to the elements of the apparatus recited in claim 1. Therefore, the recited steps of method claim 15 are mapped to the proposed combination in the same manner as the corresponding elements in apparatus claim 1. Additionally, the rationale and motivation to combine Hamarneh, Ishii and Paraketsov presented in rejection of claim 1, apply to this claim. In addition, Hamarneh teaches, An image processing method comprising: acquiring (Hamarneh, ¶0033: “Method 30 begins in block 32, which involves obtaining an initial image segmentation 34 for 3D image data”).
Regarding claim 16, it recites a computer readable medium including program instructions corresponding to the elements of the apparatus recited in claim 1. Therefore, the recited instructions of the computer readable medium of claim 16 are mapped to the proposed combination in the same manner as the corresponding elements of the apparatus claim 1. Additionally, the rationale and motivation to combine Hamarneh, Ishii and Paraketsov presented in rejection of claim 1, apply to this claim. In addition, Hamarneh teaches, A computer program product having a computer readable medium including programmed instructions, wherein the instructions, when executed by a computer, cause the computer to execute: (Hamarneh, ¶0169: “controller 406 may be implemented on a programmed computer system comprising one or more processors, user input apparatus, displays and the like”).
Claims 3-7 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamarneh et al. (US 2014/0198979 A1) in view of Paraketsov et al. (US 2022/0079714 A1), in further view of Ishii et al. (US 2017/0224300 A1) and still in further view of Kobayashi et al. (US 2024/0049944 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Hamarneh in view of Ishii and in further view of Paraketsov teaches, The image processing apparatus according to claim 2, wherein, the processor defines at least one of a first region where the editing by the user is restricted and a second region where the editing by the user is recommended, (Hamarneh, ¶0017: “recommending the low-confidence region to be the image region for which further user input would be desirable”) in the structure of the blood vessel, on the basis of a distribution of the degree of certainty in the structure of the blood vessel, (Hamarneh, ¶0017: “assigning a strength to the uncertainty indicator; identifying a low-confidence region in the 3D image data based at least in part on proximity of the low-confidence region to the image regions and strengths of the corresponding uncertainty indicators”) and blood vessel and information representing a range corresponding to the first region or the second region in the structure, causing a display unit to (Hamarneh, ¶0016: “controller may be configured to cause the display to display an indication of the low-confidence region, to obtain an image segmentation for the low-confidence region based on user input entered at the user interface”). However, the combination of Hamarneh, Ishii and Paraketsov does not explicitly teach, display superimposed information.
In an analogous field of endeavor, Kobayashi teaches, display superimposed information. (Kobayashi, ¶0166: “displays the recognition image of the blood vessel portion recognized by the special light image to be superimposed on the normal light image”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hamarneh in view of Ishii, in further view of Paraketsov using the teachings of Kobayashi to introduce displaying superimposed information. A person skilled in the art would be motivated to combine the known elements as described above and achieve the predictable result of displaying the restricted region on the medical image to the user. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the analogous arts Hamarneh, Ishii, Paraketsov and Kobayashi to obtain the invention in claim 3.
Regarding claim 4, Hamarneh in view of Ishii and in further view of Paraketsov and still in further view of Kobayashi teaches, The image processing apparatus according to claim 3, wherein the first region includes at least one of a third region where the editing by the user is prohibited (Paraketsov, ¶0022: “locking in the regions or features (e.g., surface regions, segmentation”; third region is interpreted as a region relying on fully automatic segmentation) and a fourth region where an amount of the editing by the user is suppressed within a specified range. (Hamarneh, ¶0051: “obtaining user segmentation input 44 for more than one low-confidence region. In some embodiments, the user segmentation input 44 obtained in block 42 may comprise semi-automatically generated segmentation”; fourth region is interpreted as a region relying on semi-automatic segmentation).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hamarneh in view of Ishii, in further view of Paraketsov and still in further view of Kobayashi using the teachings of Paraketsov to introduce a region locking mechanism. A person skilled in the art would be motivated to combine the known elements as described above and achieve the predictable result of preventing a user from editing a verified region. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the analogous arts Hamarneh, Ishii, Paraketsov and Kobayashi to obtain the invention in claim 4.
Regarding claim 5, Hamarneh in view of Ishii and in further view of Paraketsov and still in further view of Kobayashi teaches, The image processing apparatus according to claim 4, wherein the processor does not receive an editing operation of the user for a range included in the third region in the structure of the blood vessel displayed on the display unit, (Paraketsov, ¶0108: “the user control on the user interface may be disabled (with respect to the tool that allows the user to modify the particular feature”) receives an editing operation of the user for a range included in the fourth region only when the amount of the editing is within the specified range, (Hamarneh, ¶0076: “generates image segmentation 52 using increasing amounts of user input”) and receives an editing operation of the user for a range not included in the first region. (Hamarneh, ¶0079: “low-confidence region(s) to be an optimal region for receiving user segmentation input”). The proposed combination as well as the motivation for combining Hamarneh, Ishii and Paraketsov references presented in the rejection of claim 1, apply to claim 5 and are incorporated herein by reference. Thus, the apparatus recited in claim 5 is met by Hamarneh, Ishii, Paraketsov and Kobayashi.
Regarding claim 6, Hamarneh in view of Ishii and in further view of Paraketsov and still in further view of Kobayashi teaches, The image processing apparatus according to claim 4, wherein the processor reduces an amount of movement of an edit target in response to an editing operation of the user (Hamarneh, ¶0010: “semi-automated segmentation processes may involve automatically generating a segmentation in a first iteration and then obtaining user input for second and subsequent iterations”) for a range included in the fourth region and receives the reduced amount of movement of the edit target. (Hamarneh, ¶0076: “in successive iterations of loop 54, block 50 generates image segmentation 52 using increasing amounts of user input 44”; therefore, the first user input is a reduced amount).
Regarding claim 7, Hamarneh in view of Ishii and in further view of Paraketsov and still in further view of Kobayashi teaches, The image processing apparatus according to claim 6, wherein the processor changes a reduction rate of the amount of movement on the basis of the degree of certainty. (Hamarneh, ¶0008: “segmentation techniques can be characterized by the degree of user interaction they require”).
Regarding claim 10, Hamarneh in view of Ishii and in further view of Paraketsov teaches, The image processing apparatus according to claim 1. However, the combination of Hamarneh, Ishii and Paraketsov does not explicitly teach, wherein the processor estimates, as the structure, running of the blood vessel depicted in the medical image data, and the degree of certainty is a path search cost for each section of the blood vessel in estimating the running of the blood vessel.
In an analogous field of endeavor, Kobayashi teaches, wherein the processor estimates, as the structure, running of the blood vessel depicted in the medical image data, (Kobayashi, ¶0143: “control unit 201 displays the blood vessel portion estimated by the predicted running pattern”) and the degree of certainty is a path search cost for each section of the blood vessel in estimating the running of the blood vessel. (Kobayashi, ¶0142: “control unit 201 extracts a pixel in which the probability of the label output from the softmax layer 313 of the first learning model 310 is less than the first threshold value (for example, less than 70%) and is greater than or equal to a second threshold value (for example, 50% or greater), and predicts the running pattern of the blood vessel”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hamarneh in view of Ishii and in further view of Paraketsov using the teachings of Kobayashi to introduce estimating the running pattern of blood vessel. A person skilled in the art would be motivated to combine the known elements as described above and achieve the predictable result of automatic recognition of elements in medical images. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the analogous arts Hamarneh, Ishii, Paraketsov and Kobayashi to obtain the invention in claim 10.
Claims 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamarneh et al. (US 2014/0198979 A1) in view of Paraketsov et al. (US 2022/0079714 A1), in further view of Ishii et al. (US 2017/0224300 A1) and still in further view of Petroff et al. (US 2022/0061670 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Hamarneh in view of Ishii and in further view of Paraketsov teaches, The image processing apparatus according to claim 1. However, the combination of Hamarneh, Ishii and Paraketsov does not explicitly teach, wherein the processor estimates, as the structure, a contour of an outer wall of the blood vessel depicted in the medical image data, and in estimating a contour of a lumen of the blood vessel, the degree of certainty represents, for each pixel, an accuracy of estimating the contour of the lumen.
In an analogous field of endeavor, Petroff teaches, wherein the processor estimates, as the structure, a contour (Petroff, ¶0260: “vessel contour information and/or other information determined by system 10”) of an outer wall of the blood vessel depicted in the medical image data, (Petroff, ¶0299: “a uniform vessel wall illumination allowed precise visualization of the individual tissue layers”) and in estimating a contour of a lumen of the blood vessel, (Petroff, ¶0260: “system 10 is configured to provide blood vessel lumen contour images and/or other information”) the degree of certainty represents, for each pixel, an accuracy of estimating the contour of the lumen. (Petroff, ¶0181: “Confidence can be determined in several ways, for example the proportion of unambiguous lumen detected in a single frame (for example, at least 75% of the circumference should be unambiguous for high confidence”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hamarneh in view of Ishii and in further view of Paraketsov using the teachings of Petroff to introduce detection of blood vessel lumen. A person skilled in the art would be motivated to combine the known elements as described above and achieve the predictable result of automatic recognition of elements in medical images. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the analogous arts Hamarneh, Ishii, Paraketsov and Petroff to obtain the invention in claim 11.
Regarding claim 12, Hamarneh in view of Ishii and in further view of Paraketsov teaches, The image processing apparatus according to claim 1, (Hamarneh, ¶0119: “Where E.sub.UI(i,P) is the cost contribution associated with the i.sup.th uncertainty indicator”) of a region boundary surface in the region boundary estimation method. (Hamarneh, ¶0109: “contours are determined using the Livewire 2D segmentation process, the edge strength f.sub.j may be based on the Livewire local edge cost”). However, the combination of Hamarneh, Ishii and Paraketsov does not explicitly teach, wherein the processor estimates, as the structure, a contour of a lumen of the blood vessel depicted in the medical image data by a region boundary estimation method.
In an analogous field of endeavor, Petroff teaches, wherein the processor estimates, as the structure, a contour of a lumen of the blood vessel depicted in the medical image data (Petroff, ¶0260: “system 10 is configured to provide blood vessel lumen contour images and/or other information”) by a region boundary estimation method (Petroff, ¶0178: “data can be analyzed to identify one or more of the following: lumen boundaries”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hamarneh in view of Ishii and in further view of Paraketsov using the teachings of Petroff to introduce detection of boundaries. A person skilled in the art would be motivated to combine the known elements as described above and achieve the predictable result of automatic detection of image elements using the detected boundary of the element. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the analogous arts Hamarneh, Ishii, Paraketsov and Petroff to obtain the invention in claim 12.
Regarding claim 13, Hamarneh in view of Ishii and in further view of Paraketsov teaches, The image processing apparatus according to claim 1. However, the combination of Hamarneh, Ishii and Paraketsov does not explicitly teach, wherein the structure of the blood vessel includes at least one of a blood vessel region, a blood vessel contour, and a blood vessel core line.
In an analogous field of endeavor, Petroff teaches, wherein the structure of the blood vessel includes at least one of a blood vessel region, a blood vessel contour, and a blood vessel core line. (Petroff, ¶0314: “image reader identified regions of interest (ROI) containing atherosclerotic disease using previously established criteria for fibrotic, fibrocalcific and necrotic core plaques”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hamarneh in view of Ishii and in further view of Paraketsov using the teachings of Petroff to introduce detection of blood vessel core. A person skilled in the art would be motivated to combine the known elements as described above and achieve the predictable result of automatically inspecting blood vessels. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the analogous arts Hamarneh, Ishii, Paraketsov and Petroff to obtain the invention in claim 13.
Regarding claim 14, Hamarneh in view of Ishii and in further view of Paraketsov teaches, The image processing apparatus according to claim 1. However, the combination of Hamarneh, Ishii and Paraketsov does not explicitly teach, wherein the processor extracts at least one of a lumen of the blood vessel and a plaque in the blood vessel from the medical image data.
In an analogous field of endeavor, Petroff teaches, wherein the processor extracts at least one of a lumen of the blood vessel (Petroff, ¶0260: “system 10 is configured to provide blood vessel lumen contour images and/or other information”) and a plaque in the blood vessel from the medical image data. (Petroff, ¶0314: “system 10 image reader identified regions of interest (ROI) containing atherosclerotic disease using previously established criteria for fibrotic, fibrocalcific and necrotic core plaques”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hamarneh in view of Ishii and in further view of Paraketsov using the teachings of Petroff to introduce plaque recognition. A person skilled in the art would be motivated to combine the known elements as described above and achieve the predictable result of automatically detect plaque buildup insode the lumen of blood vessels. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the analogous arts Hamarneh, Ishii, Paraketsov and Petroff to obtain the invention in claim 14.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 MEHRAZUL ISLAM whose telephone number is (571)270-0489. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 8am-5pm.
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, Saini Amandeep can be reached at (571) 272-3382. 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.
/MEHRAZUL ISLAM/Examiner, Art Unit 2662
/AMANDEEP SAINI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2662