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 .
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.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because, the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because, the claim seeks protection for “a program” which do not have a physical or tangible form. Program is understood comprising information (often referred to as “data per se” or “software per se”) when claimed as a product without any structural recitations. Software expressed as code or a set of instructions detached from any medium is an idea without physical embodiment. See Microsoft Corp. v. AT&T Corp., 550 U.S. 437, 449, 82 USPQ2d 1400, 1407 (2007); see also Benson, 409 U.S. 67, 175 USPQ2d 675 (An "idea" is not patent eligible). Thus, a product claim to a software program that does not also contain at least one structural limitation (such as a “means plus function” limitation) has no physical or tangible form, and thus does not fall within any statutory category [see MPEP § 2106.03.I].
[Examiner’s Note: Claim 19 would be evaluated on its merit as best understood, assuming as if the claimed program is contained in at least one structural limitation (such as a “means plus function” limitation) having a physical and/or tangible form].
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 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 of this title, 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) 1-2, 13, 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eiji et al. (JP-2012239576-A, hereinafter Eiji. Document is part of IDS. Examiner provides citations from the attached English translation of the reference).
Regarding claim 1, Eiji discloses an information processing apparatus (title, fig. 1) comprising:
a search unit that searches volume data obtains a search result (Therefore, when surface rendering is performed on the binarized volume data from the direction of the line-of-sight vector V, a display image as shown in FIG. 2B is obtained, page 3, ¶3.
The boundary determination unit 50 compares the reference vector V set in the direction from the placenta side to the fetus side and the normal vector N indicating the orientation of each polygon, and based on the angle between these vectors, the reference vector V A normal vector N determined to face the same side is specified, and a polygon corresponding to the normal vector N is determined as a non-display boundary, page 4, ¶4
Thus, when the non-display boundary is determined by the boundary determination unit 50, the display image forming unit 60 displays the surface of the target tissue based on a plurality of polygons excluding the non-display boundary polygons in the volume data. Image data is formed. That is, the surface rendering process is executed along each of a plurality of lines of sight (rays)., page 4, ¶6); and
a rendering unit that performs rendering based on the polygon data and the volume data on a basis of the search result (ibid, Abstract, page 3, ¶3, page 4, ¶4-¶6, fig. 1).
Eiji is not found disclosing expressly that volume data is searched on a basis of a label.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to define the polygon determined to be a hidden [non-display] boundary in the volume data as labels, because, such definition does not alter any core steps of the invention, and also such definition could potentially enhance the search effort of the hidden areas efficiently, yielding predictable results.
Regarding claim 2, Eiji discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the search unit does not search for the inner-side data on a basis of the label indicating that the inner-side data is not to be searched for, and searches for the inner-side data on a basis of the label indicating that the inner-side data is to be searched for (ibid, Abstract, Therefore, when surface rendering is performed on the binarized volume data from the direction of the line-of-sight vector V, a display image as shown in FIG. 2B is obtained, page 3, ¶3.
The boundary determination unit 50 compares the reference vector V set in the direction from the placenta side to the fetus side and the normal vector N indicating the orientation of each polygon, and based on the angle between these vectors, the reference vector V A normal vector N determined to face the same side is specified, and a polygon corresponding to the normal vector N is determined as a non-display boundary, page 4, ¶4
Thus, when the non-display boundary is determined by the boundary determination unit 50, the display image forming unit 60 displays the surface of the target tissue based on a plurality of polygons excluding the non-display boundary polygons in the volume data. Image data is formed. That is, the surface rendering process is executed along each of a plurality of lines of sight (rays), page 4, ¶6).
Regarding claim 13, Eiji discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the rendering unit controls whether or not to perform rendering of the volume data on a basis of a distance between a viewpoint of a user and the polygon data (As shown in FIG. 5A, a part of the surface of the region T2 corresponding to the fetal hand is a non-display boundary. Therefore, the depth for determining the non-display boundary (distance from the end on the placenta side of the volume data) may be adjusted so that the surface of the region T2 is displayed over the entire area, page 5, ¶1).
Regarding claim 18, Eiji discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the rendering unit matches at least one of origin positions or scales between the polygon data and the volume data (The reference vector V may be provided along a line of sight (ray) in surface rendering. The line of sight (ray) is set from the viewpoint set by the viewpoint setting unit 40 according to the user operation toward the fetus that is the target tissue. In surface rendering, a plurality of rays are set and a rendering operation is performed for each ray. A plurality of rays may be set in parallel with one ray starting from the viewpoint, or a plurality of rays may be extended from one viewpoint. The boundary determination unit 50 compares the reference vector V set in the direction from the placenta side to the fetus side and the normal vector N indicating the orientation of each polygon, and based on the angle between these vectors, the reference vector V A normal vector N determined to face the same side is specified, and a polygon corresponding to the normal vector N is determined as a non-display boundary, page 4, ¶3-4).
Regarding method claim(s) 19, although wording is different, the material is considered substantively equivalent to the apparatus claim(s) 1 as described above.
Regarding claim(s) 20, although wording is different, the material is considered substantively equivalent to the apparatus claim(s) 1 as described above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-12, 14-18 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 3, prior arts of record taken alone or in combination fails to reasonably disclose or suggest,
the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the search unit searches the volume data in a depth direction with a predetermined viewpoint as a reference, and searches the volume data for near-side data positioned in front of the polygon data with the viewpoint as a reference, regardless of the label.
Regarding claim 14, prior arts of record taken alone or in combination fails to reasonably disclose or suggest,
the information processing apparatus according to claim 13, wherein the rendering unit performs rendering of the polygon data without performing rendering of the volume data in a case where the distance between the viewpoint of the user and the polygon data is greater than a threshold.
Regarding claim 15, prior arts of record taken alone or in combination fails to reasonably disclose or suggest,
the information processing apparatus according to claim 13, wherein the search unit does not search the volume data in a case where the distance between the viewpoint of the user and the polygon data is greater than a threshold.
Regarding claim 16, prior arts of record taken alone or in combination fails to reasonably disclose or suggest,
the information processing apparatus according to claim 13, wherein the rendering unit performs rendering based on the polygon data and the volume data on a basis of the search result in a case where the distance between the viewpoint of the user and the polygon data is smaller than a threshold.
Regarding claim 17, prior arts of record taken alone or in combination fails to reasonably disclose or suggest,
the information processing apparatus according to claim 13, wherein the search unit searches the volume data on a basis of the label in a case where the distance between the viewpoint of the user and the polygon data is smaller than a threshold.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NURUN FLORA whose telephone number is (571)272-5742. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30 am -5:00 pm.
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, Jason Chan can be reached at 571-272-3022. 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.
/NURUN FLORA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2614