DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
Claims 13-20 were elected without traverse on 11/25/2025.
Claims 1-12 are non-elected claims and currently withdrawn.
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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 13-20 in the reply filed on 11/25/2025 is acknowledged.
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 13-20 are 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 claimed invention is directed to the mental process of aligning images without significantly more.
Regarding claim 13, under step 2A prong 1, the claim recites the mental steps “obtaining an expected overlap region, the expected overlap region comprising a region of a first image of a first imaging modality that is expected to depict one or more portions of a scene that are also depicted in a second image of a second imaging modality” and “ aligning the second image with the first image using data within the first image and second image, wherein aligning the second mage with the first image refrains from utilizing image data of the first image that are outside the region of the first image.” These steps could both practically be performed in the human mind of someone aligning two different images. Under Step 2A prong 2, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim fails to recite any additional elements which would integrate the claim into a practical application or amount to significantly more under step 2B.
Regarding claim 14, the claim adds additional elements that an overlapping region is based on distance of the object to the sensors and an offset between the sensors. This amounts of data gathering and fails to remedy the abstract idea of claim 13.
Regarding claim 15, the claim adds limitations that the overlapping region is based on a field of view of the sensors and an offset between the sensors. This amounts to data gathering and fails to remedy the abstract idea of claim 13.
Regarding claim 16, the claim adds limitation that the overlapping region is based on an image capture boundary. This amounts to data gathering and fails to remedy the abstract idea of claim 13.
Regarding claim 17, the claim adds limitations that the aligning is done through maximizing mutual information. This is a mathematical process and does not remedy the abstract idea of claim 13.
Regarding claim 18, the claim adds limitations of detecting structures in images (mental process) and generating a transformation matrix for aligning images (mathematical process). These fail to remedy the abstract idea of claim 13.
Regarding claim 19, the claim adds limitation that a structure is a marker placed in preparation for imaging. This amounts to data gathering and fails to remedy the abstract idea of claim 13.
Regarding claim 20, the claim adds the limitation that the structure is a medical component. This is data gathering and fails to remedy the abstract idea of claim 13.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102The 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.
Claims 13 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yinwei (CN 109934861, translation provided).
Regarding claim 13, Yinwei teaches:
A computer-implemented method for facilitating co-registration of imagery of different modalities, comprising:
obtaining an expected overlap region, the expected overlap region comprising a region of a first image of a first imaging modality that is expected to depict one or more portions of a scene that are also depicted in a second image of a second imaging modality; (Yinwei, page 1 S1: importing fixed image and a floating image, wherein the CT image is used as a registered fixed image and the MR image is used as a registered floating image….page 2 S6, obtaining a set of overlapping region points of the surface contour point set of the CT image and the transformed MR image)and
aligning the second image with the first image using first image data within the region of the first image and second image data of the second image, wherein aligning the second image with the first image refrains from utilizing image data of the first image that are outside of the region of the first image. (Yinwei page 2 S6-S8, obtaining a set of overlapping region points of the surface contour set of the CT image and the transformed MR image, obtaining a three-dimensional region of interest according to the overlapping region point set of the CT image and the surface contour point set of the transformed MR image, using the acquired region of interest for rigid registration and non-rigid registration)
Regarding claim 18, Yinwei teaches:
The computer-implemented method of claim 13, wherein aligning the second image with the first image comprises:
detecting one or more structures within the region of the first image; (Yinwei page 3, S3-1, extracting a surface contour of the preprocessed CT image and MR image by using an MC algorithm)
detecting one or more corresponding structures within the second image; (Yinwei page 3, S3-1, extracting a surface contour of the preprocessed CT image and MR image by using an MC algorithm)
generating a transformation matrix using the one or more structures and the one or more corresponding structures; (Yinwei page 4 S4, performing surface matching on the surface contour point set of the extracted CT and MR images by using an ICP algorithm, and outputting a matching error and a transformation matrix of the two-point set) and
aligning the second image using the transformation matrix. (Yinwei, page 4 S5, performing rigid transformation on the MR image according to the transformation matrix to obtain a transformed MR image… See also page 2 S6-S8, obtaining a set of overlapping region points of the surface contour set of the CT image and the transformed MR image, obtaining a three-dimensional region of interest according to the overlapping region point set of the CT image and the surface contour point set of the transformed MR image, using the acquired region of interest for rigid registration and non-rigid registration)
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.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yinwei as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Wick (US 2020/0219255).
Regarding claim 17, Yinwei fails to teach:
The computer-implemented method of claim 13, wherein aligning the second image with the first image comprises maximizing mutual information between the region of the first image and at least a portion of the second image.
Wick teaches:
The computer-implemented method of claim 13, wherein aligning the second image with the first image comprises maximizing mutual information between the region of the first image and at least a portion of the second image. (Wick [0071]In one embodiment, multi-modal image registration techniques are used to maximize the mutual information between two given images of different modalities)
Before the time of filing it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to use the mutual information of Wick in the multi-modal registration of Yinwei. The inventions lie in the same field of endeavor of multi-modal image registration. The motivation to combine the references is to allow for identification of rotation, translation, and scale between photographs and radiographs. See Wick [0071].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 14-16 and 19-20 are not rejected under the prior art and would be allowable if rewritten in independent form and the above rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 were overcome.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. Refer to PTO-892, Notice of References Cited for a listing of analogous art. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Molly K Wilburn whose telephone number is (571)272-3589. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-4pm.
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, Emily Terrell can be reached at (571) 270-3717. 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.
/Molly Wilburn/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2666