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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 2/9/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
In response to applicant’s amendment received on 2/9/26, all requested changes to the claims have been entered.
Response to Argument
Applicant’s arguments filed on 2/9/26have been considered but they are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1-3, 5-8, 11-13, 18-20, 22-24, 26-32, 36-38 and 40 are rejected under under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Jabri et al. (US 2008/0025583) in view of CHIUCHIȘAN et al. (“Implementation of Real-Time System for Medical Image Processing using Verilog Hardware Description Language”, Recent Researches in Medicine, Biology and Bioscience, Published 2013).
With respect to claim 1, Jabri et al. teaches a medical imaging processing system (Fig. 1):
configuring the medical imaging processing system into a first configuration for a first medical imaging session based on first logic file defining a first set, wherein the first configuration implements at least a first medical imaging processing algorithm (Fig. 3 and 4, para [0026-[0030], The method 60 includes selecting an optimal computer algorithm and associated parameters for enhancing the visualization of clinical conditions in images);
receiving first medical imaging data generated during the first medical imaging session (para [0026], A patient undergoes imaging on an imaging modality 42);
generating enhanced first medical imaging data at least in part by processing the first medical imaging data using the first medical imaging processing algorithm implemented in the first configuration (Fig. 3 and 4, ref. label 48, 50 or 70);
displaying the enhanced first medical imaging data for observation during the first medical imaging session (para [0035]) Once the optimal computer algorithm is selected, the algorithm may be executed and the results may be displayed and/or stored as shown in block 114.);
reconfiguring for a second medical imaging session based on a second logic file defining a second set in the reconfigurable hardware processor, wherein the second configuration implements at least a second medical imaging processing algorithm that is not implemented in the first configuration (Fig. 3 and 4, para [0026]-[0030], The method 60 includes selecting an optimal computer algorithm and associated parameters for enhancing the visualization of clinical conditions in images, if additional clinical conditions need to be visually enhanced, the user can intervene and provide additional input);
wherein the first medical imaging processing algorithm and the second medical imaging processing algorithm are associated with the same medical imaging device (Fig 3 has one imaging modality);
receiving second medical imaging data generated during the second medical imaging session (para [0028], imaging data acquired during a patient exam is tagged for follow-up);
generating enhanced second medical imaging data at least in part by processing the second medical imaging data using the second medical imaging processing algorithm implemented in the second configuration (Fig. 3 and 4, ref. label 48, 50 or 70 for follow-up); and
displaying the enhanced second medical imaging data for observation during the second medical imaging session on a display(displaying the enhanced first medical imaging data for observation during the first medical imaging session (para [0035]) Once the optimal computer algorithm is selected, the algorithm may be executed and the results may be displayed and/or stored as shown in block 114 for follow-up).
Jabri et al. do not teach teach configuring a reconfigurable hardware processor of the medical imaging processing system into a first circuit configuration for a first medical imaging session based on first hardware logic file defining a first set of circuit connections in the reconfigurable hardware processor, wherein the first configuration implements at least a first medical imaging processing algorithm;
generating enhanced first medical imaging data at least in part by processing the first medical imaging data using the first medical imaging processing algorithm implemented in the first circuit configuration ;
CHIUCHIȘAN et al. teach configuring and reconfiguring a reconfigurable hardware processor of the medical imaging processing system into a first or second circuit configuration for a first medical imaging session based on first hardware logic file defining a first set or second set of circuit connections in the reconfigurable hardware processor, wherein the first configuration implements at least a first medical imaging processing algorithm and generating enhanced first medical imaging data or second medical image data at least in part by processing the first medical imaging data or second medical image data using the first medical imaging processing algorithm implemented in the first or second circuit configuration (page 67-69, 3 Experimental Results, fig. 3-6).
At the time of effective filing, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to substitute software configuration with hardware configuration in the method of Jabri et al.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been that image processing algorithms on reconfigurable hardware minimizes the time-to market cost, enables rapid prototyping of complex algorithms and simplifies debugging and verification.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine CHIUCHIȘAN et al. with Rhodes to obtain the invention as specified in claim 1.
With respect to claim 2, Jabri et al. teach receiving an input indicative of the second medical imaging session and, in response to receiving the input, automatically reconfiguring the reconfigurable into the second configuration (para [0028] and [0031], , f imaging data acquired during a patient exam is tagged for follow-up, if additional clinical conditions need to be visually enhanced, the user can intervene and provide additional input. The follow-up exam will be part of the clinical input for the imaging system and method, The at least one clinical condition for enhanced visualization is selected automatically by a selection algorithm based on the subject's prior medical history and/or suspect clinical condition).
Jabri et al. do not teach teach a reconfigurable hardware processor;
CHIUCHIȘAN et al. teach configuring and reconfiguring a reconfigurable hardware processor of the medical imaging processing system into a circuit configuration for a first medical imaging session based on first hardware logic file (page 67-69, 3 Experimental Results, fig. 3-6).
At the time of effective filing, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to substitute software configuration with hardware configuration in the method of Jabri et al.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been that image processing algorithms on reconfigurable hardware minimizes the time-to market cost, enables rapid prototyping of complex algorithms and simplifies debugging and verification.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine CHIUCHIȘAN et al. with Rhodes to obtain the invention as specified in claim 2.
With respect to claim 3, Jabri et al. teach that the input comprises a selection of a type of medical procedure (para 0029, clinical data, and structured knowledgebase information).
With respect to claim 5, Jabri et al. teach that the input comprises selection of a default configuration profile (para [0040] the image is processed with the default "standard look." Based on the patient's pain, as a clinical input,).
With respect to claim 6, Jabri et al. teach that the default configuration profile is based one or more connections to the medical imaging processing system from one or more external devices (para [0034] The structured knowledgebase information may be stored as part of computer, or may be stored in an external location, such as database, and connected to computer via a network.).
With respect to claim 7, Jabri et al. teach that the default configuration profile is based on a field of view of a connected external device (the image is processed with the default "standard look." Based on the patient's pain, as a clinical input, the case indicates the potential for a spontaneous pneumothorax, the technologist selects a "pneumothorax look" and creates an additional processed image that enhances the visualization of this clinical condition, if present. The radiologist receives the two processed images ("standard look" and "pneumothorax look") on PACS for review.).
With respect to claim 8, Jabri et al. teach that the first configuration is associated with a first type of medical procedure and the second configuration is associated with a second type of medical procedure (para [0028], if additional clinical conditions need to be visually enhanced, the user can intervene and provide additional input. The follow-up exam will be part of the clinical input for the imaging system and method).
With respect to claim 11, Jabri et al. teach the first medical imaging session includes imaging a patient and the second medical imaging session includes imaging the patient (para [0026] A patient undergoes imaging on an imaging modality 42 and para [0028] if imaging data acquired during a patient exam is tagged for follow-up).
With respect to claim 12, Jabri et al. teach that the first configuration data and the second configuration data are both associated with the same type of medical procedure (para [0028], specific visual enhancement algorithm chosen may be based on the previous exam so that no additional user input may be required).
With respect to claim 13, Jabri et al. teach that the first medical imaging session is a first surgical session and the second medical imaging session is a second surgical session procedure (As an example, a patient is a scuba-diver complaining of severe chest pain after being involved in a diving accident. After acquiring a radiograph, the image is processed with the default "standard look." Based on the patient's pain, as a clinical input, the case indicates the potential for a spontaneous pneumothorax, the technologist selects a "pneumothorax look" and creates an additional processed image that enhances the visualization of this clinical condition, if present. The radiologist receives the two processed images ("standard look" and "pneumothorax look") on PACS for review).
With respect to claim 18, Jabri et al. teach that the reconfigurable hardware processor is reconfigured prior to a start of imaging (page 67, using a single control input the
system achieves to inter-change them on-the-fly (is not necessary to switch off the reconfigurable equipment). Which presupposes that the enhancement filter blocks are already configured in the FPGA and only their order/parameters are switched via control signals during operation ).
With respect to claim 19, Jabri et al. teach that one or more medical imaging processing algorithms are implemented in both the first and second configurations (para [0028], the clinical-condition specific visual enhancement algorithm chosen may be based on the previous exam so that no additional user input may be required).
With respect to claim 20, Jabri et al. teach that the second medical imaging data comprises at least one of video frames and an image (para [0029], The imaging data may include the image of the anatomy) .
With respect to claim 22, Jabri et al. teach that the second medical imaging data is received from a camera control unit (para [0021], The at least one computer 16 may be any piece of equipment with software that permits electronic medical images, such as X-rays, ultrasound, CT, MR, PET, or nuclear medicine images, for example, to be electronically acquired).
With respect to claim 23, CHIUCHIȘAN et al. teach that reconfigurable hardware processor is an FPGA (pages 67-68, 3 Experimental Results).
With respect to claim 24, Jabri et al. teach receiving the second medical imaging data from a first device, receiving data from a second medical device, and outputting a display feed to the display, the display feed comprising the enhanced second medical imaging data and at least a portion of the data from the second medical device. (para [0026] and [0028] A patient undergoes imaging on an imaging modality 42. For the above embodiments, if imaging data acquired during a patient exam is tagged for follow-up ).
With respect to claim 26, Jabri et al. teach that the first configuration data is stored in a remote memory (para [0034] Alternatively the clinical and imaging data may reside on a different computer unit, or different computer units, systems, databases, servers, or other storage or processing device and be accessed accordingly. A structured knowledgebase may be a database or server comprising a finite set of algorithms that span the possible algorithms for the clinical purpose).
Claim 27 is rejected as same reason as claim 1 above.
Claim 28 is rejected as same reason as claim 2 above.
Claim 29 is rejected as same reason as claims 3-5 above.
Claim 30 is rejected as same reason as claim 6 above.
Claim 31 is rejected as same reason as claims 7 above.
Claim 32 is rejected as same reason as claims 8 above.
Claim 36 is rejected as same reason as claims 18 above.
Claim 37 is rejected as same reason as claims 19 above.
Claim 38 is rejected as same reason as claims 24 above.
With respect to claim 40, CHIUCHIȘAN et al. teach that that a first processor of the medical imaging processing system loads the first and second hardware logic files on the reconfigurable hardware processor (pages 67-68, 3 Experimental Results, Fig. 3-6).
Claims 4, 9, 10 and 33-34 is rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Jabri et al. (US 2008/0025583) in view of CHIUCHIȘAN et al. (“Implementation of Real-Time System for Medical Image Processing using Verilog Hardware Description Language”, Recent Researches in Medicine, Biology and Bioscience, Published 2013) and in further view of Haider et al. (US 11,116574).
Jabri et al. and CHIUCHIȘAN et al. teach all the limitations of claim 2 as applied above from which claim 4 respectively depend.
Jabri et al. and CHIUCHIȘAN et al. do not teach expressly that the input comprises a selection of a user profile.
Haider et al. teach the input comprises a selection of a user profile (col. 9 lines 56-64).
At the time of effective filing, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to select of a user profile in the method of Jabri et al. and CHIUCHIȘAN et al.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been that to have optimal system operation.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Haider et al. with Jabri et al. and CHIUCHIȘAN et al. to obtain the invention as specified in claim 4.
With respect to claim 9, Haider et al. teach that the first medical imaging session includes performance of the first type of medical procedure on a patient and the second medical imaging session includes performance of the second type of medical procedure on the patient (col. 9 lines 56-64).
With respect to claim 10, Haider et al. teach that the first configuration is associated with a first user profile and the second configuration is associated with a second user profile (col. 9 lines 56-64).
Claim 33 is rejected as same reason as claims 9 above.
Claim 34 is rejected as same reason as claims 10 above.
Claims 14-16, 21 and 35 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Jabri et al. (US 2008/0025583) in view of CHIUCHIȘAN et al. (“Implementation of Real-Time System for Medical Image Processing using Verilog Hardware Description Language”, Recent Researches in Medicine, Biology and Bioscience, Published 2013) and in further view Nir et al. (US 20250040789).
Jabri et al. and CHIUCHIȘAN et al. teach all the limitations of claim 1 as applied above from which claim 14 respectively depend.
Jabri et al. and CHIUCHIȘAN et al. do not teach expressly that the at least one medical imaging processing algorithm implemented in the second configuration comprises a smoke detection algorithm and generating the enhanced second medical imaging data comprises enhancing clarity of one or more portions of one or more images associated with smoke.
Nir et al. teach the at least one medical imaging processing algorithm implemented in the second configuration comprises a smoke detection algorithm and generating the enhanced second medical imaging data comprises enhancing clarity of one or more portions of one or more images associated with smoke. (para [0811], tracking subsystem, smoke reduction).
At the time of effective filing, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to detect and enhance smoke in the method of Jabri et al. and CHIUCHIȘAN et al.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been that to output better image for user
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Nir et al. with Jabri et al. and CHIUCHIȘAN et al. to obtain the invention as specified in claim 14.
With respect to claim 15, Nir et al. teach that the first medical imaging processing algorithm is configured to detect a feature of imaged tissue (para [0205], detect blood vessel).
With respect to claim 16, Nir et al. teach that the feature of imaged tissue is tissue perfusion, a location of a blood vessel, an amount of blood flow, a dimension of imaged tissue, or a combination thereof (para [0205], detect blood vessel).
With respect to claim 21, Nir et al. teach that the second medical imaging data is received from an endoscopic imaging system (para [0003]).
Claim 35 is rejected as same reason as claims 14 above.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Jabri et al. (US 2008/0025583) in view of CHIUCHIȘAN et al. (“Implementation of Real-Time System for Medical Image Processing using Verilog Hardware Description Language”, Recent Researches in Medicine, Biology and Bioscience, Published 2013) and in further view Boveja et al. (US 11,206,984)
Jabri et al. and CHIUCHIȘAN et al. teach all the limitations of claim 1 as applied above from which claim 17 respectively depend.
Jabri et al. and CHIUCHIȘAN et al. do not teach expressly that the enhanced second medical imaging data comprises an overlay on at least a portion of the second medical imaging data.
Boveja et al. teach the enhanced second medical imaging data comprises an overlay on at least a portion of the second medical imaging data. (col. 5 lines 48-50, live fluoroscopy images are superimposed on the "enhanced" images of the pulmonary veins).
At the time of effective filing, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to overlay enhanced image in the method of Jabri et al. and CHIUCHIȘAN et al..
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been that to guide physician regarding displayed image.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Boveja et al. with Jabri et al. and CHIUCHIȘAN et al. to obtain the invention as specified in claim 17.
Claims 25 and 39 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Jabri et al. (US 2008/0025583) in view of CHIUCHIȘAN et al. (“Implementation of Real-Time System for Medical Image Processing using Verilog Hardware Description Language”, Recent Researches in Medicine, Biology and Bioscience, Published 2013) and in further view User Manual (“RadiAnt DICOM Viewer”, 10/31/2018)
Jabri et al. and CHIUCHIȘAN et al. teach all the limitations of claim 1 as applied above from which claim 24respectively depend.
Jabri et al. and CHIUCHIȘAN et al. do not teach expressly that generating, by the first processor, the display feed by combining the enhanced second medical imaging data with the at least a portion of the data associated with the second medical device.
Use manual teaches generating, by the first processor, the display feed by combining the enhanced second medical imaging data with the at least a portion of the data associated with the second medical device (page 78-79, 2.10 annotation, DICOM files contain a lot of information stored in tags associated with image, important data is overlaid on top of the image displayed including information about medical imaging device such as Field strength, repetition time, echo time… ).
At the time of effective filing, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to overlay enhanced image in the method of Jabri et al. and CHIUCHIȘAN et al..
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been that to guide physician regarding displayed image.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Use manual with Jabri et al. and CHIUCHIȘAN et al. to obtain the invention as specified in claim 25.
Claim 39 is rejected as same reason as claims 25 above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Randolph Chu whose telephone number is 571-270-1145. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Thursday from 7:30 am - 5 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Matthew Bella can be reached on (571) 272-7778.
The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/RANDOLPH I CHU/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2667
Prosecution Insights