DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant has amended claim(s) 1, 11-12, 15
Claim(s) 10 has been cancelled.
Claim(s) 1-9, 11-15 is/are currently pending.
Applicant's arguments, in pages 6-10 filed 10/23/2025, with respect to the 35 USC 102/103 rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-15 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues, in pages 7-8 filed 10/23/2025, that Boskamp does not teach “Fitting an idealized geometric model” or “Accepting or rejecting a candidate boundary based on its conformance to such a model,” and that because of this, Applicant alleges, “claim 1 is patentably distinguishable over Boskamp.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “Fitting an idealized geometric model” and “Accepting or rejecting a candidate boundary based on its conformance to such a model”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Further, the Applicant is reminded that 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 (see MPEP 2111.01). As such, claim 1 of the application is not patentably distinct over Boskamp. The claim as amended 10/23/2025 recites only “wherein identifying the boundary of the vessel comprises determining whether a structure, defined by the set of radiographic imaging values within the cross-section of the region, corresponds to a predefined vessel model indicative of the boundary of the vessel”: there is no recitation of “fitting an idealized geometric model,” nor of “accepting or rejecting a candidate boundary based on its conformance to such a model.” Boskamp indeed teaches the “model” as recited in the claim under broadest reasonable interpretation, as Boskamp’s characterization of vessel boundaries using diameter, appearance, and radiographic imaging values is itself a model, as in a predefined representation of a structure. Further, the Applicant argues that “Because Boskamp accepts every such contour, it lacks the model-conformance test that Applicant’s claim 1 requires.” However, Applicant’s claim 1 does not in fact require nor recite a “model-conformance test”; it instead recites “determining whether a structure…corresponds to a predefined vessel model.” Thus, Boskamp’s identification of vessel boundaries based off needing to fit a predefined characterization indeed corresponds to the claimed “predefined vessel model indicative of the boundary of the vessel” and indeed corresponds to the claimed “determining whether a structure…corresponds to a predefined vessel model indicative of the boundary of the vessel.” As such, under Broadest Reasonable Interpretation of the claims as written, without importing limitations from the specification or from the arguments, Boskamp indeed teaches the amended claim 1. Thus, the rejection(s) is/are maintained.
As such, this action is made FINAL.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 9, 11-12, 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Boskamp, T., et al., “New Vessel Analysis Tool for Morphometric Quantification and Visualization of Vessels in CT and MR imaging Data Sets,” Radiographics, The Radiological Society of North America, US, vol. 24, no. 1, 1 January 2004 (2004-01-01), pages 287-297, XP003001612, as disclosed in applicant’s IDS dated 7/26/23, hereinafter referred to as Boskamp.
Regarding claim 1, Boskamp teaches a computer-implemented method, comprising: estimating a pair of threshold values for being compared to radiographic imaging values to classify a region derived from radiographic imaging data of a subject based on whether a part of the region comprises a radiographic imaging value indicative of presence of a vessel (Boskamp, Fig. 1, pair of threshold values (upper and lower) are estimated for comparison to radiographic imaging values (voxels) to classify a region derived from the radiographic imaging data of a subject (the seed points identified in the CT image data) based on whether a part of the region comprises a radiographic imaging value indicative of a presence of a vessel (if they “meet certain inclusion criteria” controlled by thresholds), pgs. 2-3); identifying, within a cross-section of the region, a boundary of the vessel based on a set of radiographic imaging values classified according to the pair of threshold values (Boskamp, identifying “vessel lumen boundary on the cross-sectional MPR sections” of the regions, based on the set of imaging values that were earlier classified according to the pair of threshold values, pgs. 6-7), wherein identifying the boundary of the vessel comprises determining whether a structure, defined by the set of radiographic imaging values within the cross-section of the region, corresponds to a predefined vessel model indicative of the boundary of the vessel (Boskamp, Figs. 6-8, “identify the vessel lumen boundary on the cross-sectional MPR sections” by determining whether the structure, defined by the set of radiographic imaging values within the cross-section of the region, “appears as a bright line separating the darker interior and exterior regions of the vessel” and has a corresponding diameter, which corresponds to a predefined vessel model indicative of the boundary of the vessel [because the characterization/model which the boundary needs to correspond to is predefined, and it must fit this characterization/model in order to be identified as a vessel boundary], pgs. 6-7); and determining a segment shape of the vessel that connects the identified boundary of the vessel with another boundary of the vessel identified in a cross-section of a further region adjacent to the region (Boskamp, Figs. 6-7, determine segment shape of the vessel that connects the identified boundary of the vessel with another boundary of the vessel in a cross-section of a further region of each slice (Fig. 6, top left), adjacent to the current region cross-section (Fig. 6, bottom left), wherein the “white line indicates the result of the lumen boundary identification performed on all cross-sectional sections,” thereby forming the entire vessel of connected, adjacent boundaries/vessel walls (Fig. 6, right; Fig. 7), pgs. 6-7).
Regarding claim 2, Boskamp teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising generating a simulation of the segment shape and causing the simulation to be displayed on a user interface (Boskamp, Fig. 10, 13, final segment shape simulation/visualization is generated and displayed to the user via interface, pgs. 8-10)
Regarding claim 3, Boskamp teaches the method of claim 2, further comprising displaying the segment shape as an overlay of a simulation of the subject (Boskamp, Fig. 10, 13, the segment shape is “displayed as overlays to the original image data [simulation of subject],” pgs. 8-10); and updating the simulation of the subject based on the segment shape (Boskamp, Fig. 10, 13, simulation/visualization of the subject is updated with the segment shape to show to user, pgs. 8-10).
Regarding claim 5, Boskamp teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the region is centered around a seed point (Boskamp, Fig. 1, region is centered around a “seed point,” pgs. 2-3), wherein a size of the region is based on the region comprising radiographic imaging values indicative of both presence and lack of presence of the vessel within the region, and wherein a range defined by the pair of threshold values comprises the radiographic imaging value at the seed point (Boskamp, Fig. 1, size of the region is based on which of the radiographic imaging values meet inclusion criteria, based on the pair of threshold values, that indicate presence or lack of presence of vessel within the region starting at the seed point, pgs. 2-3).
Regarding claim 9, Boskamp teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the pair of threshold values are set according to contrast between radiographic imaging values associated with the vessel and radiographic imaging values associated with features surrounding the vessel (Boskamp, pair of threshold values are set according to the contrast between values associated with the vessel and the values associated with features surrounding the vessel, e.g. setting the lower value threshold to include similar, lower contrast grey values indicating vessels, and setting the upper threshold to avoid values with higher contrast that are brighter, indicating features like bones (features surrounding vessel), pgs. 2-3).
Regarding claim 11, Boskamp teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the vessel model is based on the boundary being ring-shaped (Boskamp, Figs. 6-8, vessel model is “based on the quantification of the cross-sectional areas and diameters for each cross-sectional section,” with the boundary being ring/elliptical-shaped in a cross-section (as best pictured in Fig. 6), pgs. 6-7).
Regarding claim 12, Boskamp teaches the method of claim 1, comprising identifying, within a cross-section of the further region derived from the radiographic imaging data, the another boundary of the vessel by determining whether a structure, defined by the set of radiographic imaging values within the cross-section of the further region, corresponds to the vessel model (Boskamp, Figs. 6-8, identify within the further, adjacent cross-sectional region/section derived from the radiographic imaging data the another boundary via “the lumen boundary identification performed on all cross-sectional sections,” wherein it is determined whether the structure “appears as a bright line separating the darker interior and exterior regions of the vessel” and has a corresponding diameter, therefore corresponding to the vessel model, pgs. 6-7).
Regarding claims 14-15, the rationale provided in the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein. In addition, the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 14 (Boskamp, embodied in the computer (“Microsoft, Redmond, Wash”) utilized for the software, pgs. 1-2, 7) and the device of claim 15 (Boskamp, device comprising the software, computer, and imaging apparatus, pgs. 1-2, 7) corresponds to the method of claim 1, and performs the steps disclosed herein.
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.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boskamp as applied to claim 2 above, in view of Ouji (US 9984458 B2).
Regarding claim 4, Boskamp teaches the method of claim 2.
However, Boskamp fails to teach where Ouji teaches further comprising determining an additional segment shape of the vessel connected to the determined segment shape (Ouji, Fig. 1, determine an additional segment shape of the vessel connected to the determined segment shape, the connection determined by intersection/union status, Col. 3, Lines 30-51, Col. 5, Lines 7-25, 50-67) and causing a simulation of the segment shape and the additional segment shape to be displayed on the user interface (Ouji, Fig. 1, “combine and display” the additional segment shape and segment shape as a simulation/visualization together to the user, Col. 2, Lines 34-37, 46-54).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Boskamp using the teachings of Ouji to include Ouji’s determination and display of an additional segment shape to the determined segment shape to Boskamp’s determination and display of the segment shape. Doing so would improve determination and display of the entire segmented shape by providing an explicit determination of additional, connected segment shapes, which would be used to connect the entirety of the segment shapes, beyond just their connected boundaries.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boskamp as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Golden (US 11551353 B2).
Regarding claim 6, Boskamp teaches the method of claim 1, wherein estimating the pair of threshold values comprises, prior to classifying the set of radiographic imaging values, transforming the radiographic imaging values based on a range of radiographic imaging values selected for display on a user interface (Boskamp, threshold values are estimated by first, before classifying values, premasking based on a watershed transform, thereby transforming the radiographic imaging values, the transformation being based on a range of values that will best differentiate regions for the user, for both the display and the display’s interactive region-definition on the user interface, wherein thresholds are then estimated, pgs. 4-5).
However, Boskamp fails to teach where Golden teaches wherein estimating the pair of threshold values comprises, prior to classifying the set of radiographic imaging values, normalizing the radiographic imaging values (Golden, Figs. 2, 6, imaging values are pre-processed for improved display visualization, including “normalized,” before going on to classification and thresholding, Col. 15, Lines 54-65).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Boskamp using the teachings of Golden to include Golden’s normalization of radiographic imaging values, prior to classification and thresholding, for display, to Boskamp’s transformation of radiographic imaging values, prior to classification and thresholding, based on a range of radiographic imaging values for display. Doing so would improve transformation of the radiographic imaging values for display by providing normalization, which would be used to better visualize the images.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boskamp in view of Golden as applied to claim 6 above, in further view of Hofmann (US 20190380670 A1).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Boskamp and Golden teaches the method of claim 6.
However, the combination of Boskamp and Golden fails to teach where Hofmann teaches comprising, upon classifying the set of radiographic imaging values according to the pair of threshold values, de-normalizing the normalized radiographic imaging values (Hofmann, after segmentation [corresponding to classification] according to multiple threshold values, normalized radiographic imaging values are denormalized, [0066-0071, 0074]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Boskamp, as modified by Golden, using the teachings of Hofmann to include Hofmann’s denormalization of normalized radiographic imaging values following classification and thresholding to Boskamp’s, as modified by Golden, classification and thresholding of normalized radiographic imaging values. Doing so would improve the processing of radiographic imaging values by providing denormalization, which would be used to preserve the original image information following processing.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boskamp as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Katamaneni (US 20160029027 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Boskamp teaches the method of claim 1.
However, Boskamp fails to teach where Katamaneni teaches comprising classifying the set of radiographic imaging values into at least one class based on identifying at least one cluster within the set of the radiographic imaging values (Katamaneni, Fig. 17, classify set of radiographic ([0056]) image values into clusters based on the identified clusters, [0370]), and selecting the pair of threshold values based on a re-organized set of the classified set of radiographic imaging values around a radiographic imaging value of a seed point associated with the vessel, wherein the at least one class comprises a range of radiographic imaging values that comprise the radiographic imaging value of the seed point (Katamaneni, select threshold values (one per cluster, amounting to a pair) based on the radiographic imaging values, having been re-organized into the clusters and sub-clusters, around the “seed” point, wherein “seeds are assigned to each of the groups corresponding to the classifications,” with the classes comprising a range of values that includes the value of the seed point, [0370-0380, 0426-0427]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Boskamp using the teachings of Katamaneni to include Katamaneni’s clustering, classification, and selection of threshold values around a seed point to Boskamp’s classification and selection of threshold values around a seed point. Doing so would improve radiographic imaging value processing by providing clustering, which would be used to partition the data into similar groups (clusters) for improved processing.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boskamp as applied to claim 12 above, in further view of Boskamp, T., Hahn, H., et al., “Geometrical and Structural Analysis of Vessel Systems in 3D Medical Image Datasets,” Methods in Cardiovascular and Brain Systems, vol. 5, 1 January 2005 (2005-01-01), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd. XP055104761., hereinafter referred to as Hahn.
Regarding claim 13, Boskamp teaches the method of claim 12.
However, Boskamp fails to teach where Hahn teaches comprising determining the segment shape of the vessel by estimating a surface profile of the vessel connecting the boundaries of the vessel identified within the region and the further region (Hahn, Fig. 11, segment shape of the vessel is determined by estimating a surface profile/model of the vessel connecting the boundaries/edges of the vessel identified within the region and the further region of the cross-sections, pgs. 22-23).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Boskamp using the teachings of Hahn to include Hahn’s determination of the segment shape of the vessel via surface profiling/modelling of the boundaries of the vessel identified within the region and the further region to Boskamp’s determination of the segment shape of the vessel considering the boundaries of the vessel identified within the region and the further region. Doing so would improve determination of the segment shape of the vessel using the boundaries by providing surface profiling/modelling, which would be used to better and more smoothly characterize the vessel, its boundaries, and connections.
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 KEELY G YEARGIN whose telephone number is (571)272-5126. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8am-6pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Vincent Rudolph can be reached at (571) 272-8243. 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.
/KEELY GWYNNE YEARGIN/Examiner, Art Unit 2671
/VINCENT RUDOLPH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2671
Prosecution Insights