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 Status
The status of claims 1-17 is:
Claims 1-17 were pending as of the Non-Final Rejection mailed 11/05/2025.
Claims 1, 3, 5-14, and 16 are amended as of the remarks and amendments received 02/05/2026.
Claims 15 and 17 remain as originally presented as of the remarks and amendments received 02/05/2026.
Claims 2 and 4 are cancelled as of the remarks and amendments received 02/05/2026.
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.
35 U.S.C. 101 requires that a claimed invention must fall within one of the four eligible categories of invention (i.e. process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter) and must not be directed to subject matter encompassing a judicially recognized exception as interpreted by the courts. MPEP 2106. Three categories of subject matter are found to be judicially recognized exceptions to 35 U.S.C. § 101 (i.e. patent ineligible) (1) laws of nature, (2) physical phenomena, and (3) abstract ideas. MPEP 2106(II). To be patent-eligible, a claim directed to a judicial exception must as whole be integrated into a practical application or directed to significantly more than the exception itself (MPEP 2106). Hence, the claim must describe a process or product that applies the exception in a meaningful way, such that it is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
Claims 1, 3, and 5-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Independent claim 1 is directed to one of the four statutory categories of eligible subject matter; thus, the claim passes Step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test (See flowchart in MPEP 2106).
Step 2A, Prong 1 Analysis
Independent claim 1 is directed acquire a medical image regarding a spine including a plurality of vertebrae; receive, from a user, an input operation of editing a spine number allocated to each of the vertebrae in the medical image; correct the spine number other than the spine number edited based on the received input operation; acquire a designated position in the medical image, wherein the designated position is designated by the input operation; acquire, based on the acquired designated position, anatomical landmark information that is information regarding anatomical landmarks in the vertebra at the designated position and/or in the vertebra adjacent to the vertebra at the designated position; edit the spine number of the vertebra at the designated position based on the received input operation and the acquired anatomical landmark information; correct the spine number other than the spine number edited by comparing positional information of the designated position with positional information of anatomical landmarks of vertebrae adjacent to the vertebra at the designated position to determine a spine number sequence; determine whether or not there is a vacancy in the spine number based on the anatomical landmark information in the vertebra adjacent to the vertebra at the designated position; when there is a vacancy in the spine number, add a vacant spine number corresponding to the vacancy as the spine number of the vertebra at the designated position; and when there is no vacancy in the spine number, shift and add the spine number in the vertebra adjacent to the vertebra at the designated position as the spine number of the vertebra at the designated position. An individual acquire a medical image regarding a spine including a plurality of vertebrae; receive, from a user, an input operation of editing a spine number allocated to each of the vertebrae in the medical image; correct the spine number other than the spine number edited based on the received input operation; acquire a designated position in the medical image, wherein the designated position is designated by the input operation; acquire, based on the acquired designated position, anatomical landmark information that is information regarding anatomical landmarks in the vertebra at the designated position and/or in the vertebra adjacent to the vertebra at the designated position; edit the spine number of the vertebra at the designated position based on the received input operation and the acquired anatomical landmark information; correct the spine number other than the spine number edited by comparing positional information of the designated position with positional information of anatomical landmarks of vertebrae adjacent to the vertebra at the designated position to determine a spine number sequence; determine whether or not there is a vacancy in the spine number based on the anatomical landmark information in the vertebra adjacent to the vertebra at the designated position; when there is a vacancy in the spine number, add a vacant spine number corresponding to the vacancy as the spine number of the vertebra at the designated position; and when there is no vacancy in the spine number, shift and add the spine number in the vertebra adjacent to the vertebra at the designated position as the spine number of the vertebra at the designated position. Accordingly, the analysis under prong one of Step 2A of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test does not result in a conclusion of eligibility (See flowchart in MPEP 2106).
Additional elements
Independent claim 1 claims an image processing apparatus comprising: processing circuitry.
Step 2A, Prong 2 Analysis
The above-identified elements do not integrate the judicial into a practical application nor do they suggest an improvement.
The additional elements of an image processing apparatus comprising processing circuitry amounts to merely using generic computer hardware or components as a tool to perform the claimed mental process.
Using a general purpose computer to apply a judicial exception does not qualify as a particular machine and therefore, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application (See MPEP 2106.05(b)). Furthermore, implementing an abstract idea on a computer does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Moreover, the additional elements of the claims do not recite an improvement in the functioning of a computer or another technology or technical field, the claimed steps do not effect a transformation, and the claims do not apply the judicial exception in any meaningful way beyond generically linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (See MPEP 2106.04(d)).
Further, the act of acquiring data is mere data gathering which amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). Therefore, the analysis under prong two of step 2A of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test does not result in a conclusion of eligibility (See flowchart in MPEP 2106).
Step 2B
Finally, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding independent claim 1, as noted above, the additional elements are generic computer features which perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional and do not amount to more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea).
Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves and other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation, and mere implementation on a generic computer does not add significantly more to the claims. Accordingly, the analysis under step 2B of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test does not result in a conclusion of eligibility (See flowchart in MPEP 2106).
For all the foregoing reasons, independent claim 1 does not recite eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101.
Claim 3 claims wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to: acquire the designated position in the medical image, wherein the designated position is designated by the input operation of adding the spine number; acquire anatomical landmark information in the vertebra adjacent to the vertebra at the designated position; and add the spine number of the vertebra at the designated position based on the input operation and the acquired anatomical landmark information. The features of claim 3 are directed to the mental process since they do not preclude the mental analysis as recited in claim 1. Accordingly, claim 3 does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 5 claims wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to: when the spine number is shifted, with reference to the added spine number of the vertebra at the designated position, correct other spine numbers located on a side of the spine number overlapping the spine number of the vertebra at the designated position and in a same region as the added spine number of the vertebra at the added designated position; and display the added spine number of the vertebra at the added designated position and the corrected spine numbers. The features of claim 5 are directed to the mental process since they do not preclude the mental analysis as recited in claim 1. Accordingly, claim 5 does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 6 claims wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to: determine whether or not the designated position is located at a boundary between different regions in the spine based on the anatomical landmark information; when the designated position is located at the boundary between the different regions, generate a plurality of options regarding the spine number of the vertebra at the designated position based on the anatomical landmark information in the vertebra adjacent to the vertebra at the designated position; and select the spine number to be added from the plurality of generated options. The features of claim 6 are directed to the mental process since they do not preclude the mental analysis as recited in claim 1. Accordingly, claim 6 does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 7 claims wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to: when the selected spine number overlaps with the spine number in the anatomical landmark information of the vertebra adjacent to the vertebra at the designated position, correct the spine number located in a same region as the selected spine number; and display the plurality of options regarding the spine number and the corrected spine number. The features of claim 7 are directed to the mental process since they do not preclude the mental analysis as recited in claim 1. Accordingly, claim 7 does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 8 claims wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to: acquire the designated position in the medical image, wherein the designated position is designated by the input operation of deleting the spine number; acquire anatomical landmark information of the vertebra at the designated position; and delete the spine number of the vertebra at the designated position based on the input operation and the acquired anatomical landmark information. The features of claim 8 are directed to the mental process since they do not preclude the mental analysis as recited in claim 1. Accordingly, claim 8 does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 9 claims wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to: acquire the anatomical landmark information in the vertebra adjacent to the vertebra at the designated position; and based on the anatomical landmark information in the vertebra adjacent to the vertebra at the designated position, shift the spine number of the vertebra at the designated position to correct other spine numbers in a same region as the deleted spine number of the vertebra at the designated position, and display the corrected spine numbers. The features of claim 9 are directed to the mental process since they do not preclude the mental analysis as recited in claim 1. Accordingly, claim 9 does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 10 claims wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to: determine whether or not the designated position is located at a boundary between different regions in the spine based on the anatomical landmark information; when the designated position is located at the boundary between the different regions, generate a plurality of options regarding the spine number of the vertebra at the designated position based on the anatomical landmark information in the vertebra at the designated position and the anatomical landmark information in the vertebra adjacent to the vertebra at the designated position; and select the spine number to be deleted from the plurality of generated options. The features of claim 10 are directed to the mental process since they do not preclude the mental analysis as recited in claim 1. Accordingly, claim 10 does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 11 claims wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to: when the selected spine number overlaps with the spine number in the anatomical landmark information in the vertebra adjacent to the vertebra at the designated location, correct other spine numbers located in a same region as the selected spine number; and display the plurality of options regarding the spine number and the corrected spine numbers. The features of claim 11 are directed to the mental process since they do not preclude the mental analysis as recited in claim 1. Accordingly, claim 11 does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 12 claims wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to move the spine number based on the input operation of moving the spine number. The features of claim 12 are directed to the mental process since they do not preclude the mental analysis as recited in claim 1. Accordingly, claim 12 does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 13 claims wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to: acquire the designated position that is a position after movement of the spine number; acquire the spine number at the designated position and the anatomical landmark information of the vertebra adjacent to the vertebra at the designated position that is the position after movement of the spine number; and based on the spine number at the designated position and the anatomical landmark information of the vertebra adjacent to the vertebra at the designated position that is the position after the movement of the spine number, generate a plurality of options regarding the spine number of the vertebra at the designated position that is the position after the movement of the spine number. The features of claim 13 are directed to the mental process since they do not preclude the mental analysis as recited in claim 1. Accordingly, claim 13 does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 14 claims wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to: generate and display a selection screen for allowing the user to select the spine number from the plurality of options regarding the spine number; and receive selection of the spine number via the selection screen. The features of claim 14 are directed to the mental process since they do not preclude the mental analysis as recited in claim 1. Accordingly, claim 14 does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 15 claims wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to select the spine number of the vertebra at the designated position after the movement from the plurality of options based on the anatomical landmark information in the vertebra adjacent to the vertebra at the designated position. The features of claim 15 are directed to the mental process since they do not preclude the mental analysis as recited in claim 1. Accordingly, claim 15 does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 16 claims wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to: determine, based on the anatomical landmark information adjacent to the vertebra at the designated position, whether or not there is the spine number that overlaps with the spine number of the vertebra at the designated position; when there is the spine number that overlaps with the spine number of the vertebra at the designated position, correct the overlapping spine number based on the anatomical landmark information adjacent to the spine number of the vertebra at the designated position; and display the spine number of the vertebra at the designated position and the corrected spine number. The features of claim 16 are directed to the mental process since they do not preclude the mental analysis as recited in claim 1. Accordingly, claim 16 does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 17 claims wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to display one of the spine numbers among the plurality of options in a highlighted manner. The features of claim 17 are directed to the mental process since they do not preclude the mental analysis as recited in claim 1. Accordingly, claim 17 does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
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) 1, 3, and 5-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ayed et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No 2018/0096101, hereinafter “Ayed”) in view of Krishnan et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No 2012/0172700, hereinafter “Krishnan”) and Yang et al. (Yang, D., Xiong, T., Xu, D., Huang, Q., Liu, D., Zhou, S. K., ... & Comaniciu, D. (2017, May). Automatic vertebra labeling in large-scale 3D CT using deep image-to-image network with message passing and sparsity regularization. In International conference on information processing in medical imaging (pp. 633-644). Cham: Springer International Publishing., hereinafter “Yang”).
Regarding claim 1, Ayed discloses an image processing apparatus comprising:
processing circuitry (Ayed [0007]: “FIG. 7 is a processor platform to execute the instructions of FIG. 6 to implement the system of FIG. 1”) configured to:
acquire a medical image regarding a spine including a plurality of vertebrae (Ayed [0012]: “FIG. 1 depicts an example system 100 for annotating images such as spinal images. In some examples, the system 100 includes a computer 102 and an annotator 104 communicatively coupled to the computer 102. In this example, the computer 102 includes a user interface 106 and a data input (e.g., a keyboard, mouse, microphone, etc.) 108 and the annotator 104 includes a processor 110 and a database 112”);
receive, from a user, an input operation of editing a spine number allocated to each of the vertebrae in the medical image (Ayed [0011]: “For example, based on initial user input (e.g., identifying a vertebra), the system can automatically provide first annotations to a spine image and present the spine image including the first annotations for user review. To quickly correct any errors included in the first annotations, the system receives user input and/or feedback with respect to the first annotations”);
correct the spine number other than the spine number edited based on the received input operation (Ayed [0011]: “In some examples, the user can provide input (e.g., identify new and/or improperly labeled vertebra and/or candidates) by clicking on a false positive, a false negative, a non-labeled and/or mislabeled vertebra and/or disc, etc. In response to the input and/or feedback received, the system takes into account the user input (e.g., new candidates for labeling based on user input, user identified vertebra and/or disc) and the known spatial organization of the vertebra and automatically provides second annotates and/or labels to the spine image for user review (e.g., the system re-annotates the spine image)”);
acquire a designated position in the medical image, wherein the designated position is designated by the input operation (Ayed [0011]: “For example, based on initial user input (e.g., identifying a vertebra), the system can automatically provide first annotations to a spine image and present the spine image including the first annotations for user review”);
acquire, based on the acquired designated position, anatomical landmark information that is information regarding anatomical landmarks in the vertebra at the designated position and/or in the vertebra adjacent to the vertebra at the designated position (Ayed [0017]: “In some examples, the feature vector contains image statistics within several box-shaped image patches of different orientations and/or scales. Such patch-based features may encode contextual information about the vertebrae and/or neighboring structures (e.g., size, shape, orientation, relationships to neighboring structures, etc.)”);
edit the spine number of the vertebra at the designated position based on the received input operation and the acquired anatomical landmark information (Ayed [0062]: “The annotations anatomically label and distinguish between two or more immediately adjacent vertebrae on the spinal image using contextual-information feature vectors. The contextual-information feature vectors encode the identified points with information of at least one of size, shape, orientation, or relationships to neighboring structures. The computer-implemented method also includes e) receiving a first subsequent user input on the previously generated annotations identifying a point corresponding to an error within the previously generated annotations. In response to receiving the first subsequent user input, the computer-implemented method also includes f) updating the identified points and contextual-information feature vectors for the updated identified points, automatically generating subsequent annotations on the spinal image using the updated contextual-information feature vectors”); and
when there is no vacancy in the spine number, shift and add the spine number in the vertebra adjacent to the vertebra at the designated position as the spine number of the vertebra at the designated position (Ayed [0011]: “In some examples, the user can provide input (e.g., identify new and/or improperly labeled vertebra and/or candidates) by clicking on a false positive, a false negative, a non-labeled and/or mislabeled vertebra and/or disc, etc.”; Ayed [0062]: “The annotations anatomically label and distinguish between two or more immediately adjacent vertebrae on the spinal image using contextual-information feature vectors. The contextual-information feature vectors encode the identified points with information of at least one of size, shape, orientation, or relationships to neighboring structures. The computer-implemented method also includes e) receiving a first subsequent user input on the previously generated annotations identifying a point corresponding to an error within the previously generated annotations. In response to receiving the first subsequent user input, the computer-implemented method also includes f) updating the identified points and contextual-information feature vectors for the updated identified points, automatically generating subsequent annotations on the spinal image using the updated contextual-information feature vectors”).
Ayed does not explicitly disclose the apparatus, configured to:
correct the spine number other than the spine number edited by comparing positional information of the designated position with positional information of anatomical landmarks of vertebrae adjacent to the vertebra at the designated position to determine a spine number sequence;
determine whether or not there is a vacancy in the spine number based on the anatomical landmark information in the vertebra adjacent to the vertebra at the designated position; and
when there is a vacancy in the spine number, add a vacant spine number corresponding to the vacancy as the spine number of the vertebra at the designated position.
However, Krishnan teaches the apparatus, configured to:
determine whether or not there is a vacancy in the spine number based on the anatomical landmark information in the vertebra adjacent to the vertebra at the designated position (Krishnan [0079]: “FIG. 11 shows an exemplary graphical user interface 228 for detecting a missing vertebra. As shown, a coronal view 404a, a sagittal view 404b, a transverse view 404c and a volume-rendered view 404d view of a chest CT image is shown. The views 404a-d may be linked in accordance with the techniques previously described so as to enable synchronized scrolling and accelerated navigation. As the user navigates the images, it may be discovered that, for example, the topmost cervical vertebra (or atlas) C1 or the first sacral vertebra 51 is missing. Alternatively, the evaluation module 206 may automatically detect the missing vertebra and notify the user via the user interface 228”).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate determining if there is a vacancy in the spine number as taught by Krishnan with the apparatus of Ayed because it would improve the apparatus by allowing it to identify another type of error in the vertebrae labeling. This motivation for the combination of Ayed and Krishnan is supported by KSR exemplary rationale (D) Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results. MPEP 2141 (III).
The Ayed and Krishnan combination does not explicitly disclose the apparatus, configured to:
correct the spine number other than the spine number edited by comparing positional information of the designated position with positional information of anatomical landmarks of vertebrae adjacent to the vertebra at the designated position to determine a spine number sequence; and
when there is a vacancy in the spine number, add a vacant spine number corresponding to the vacancy as the spine number of the vertebra at the designated position.
However, Yang teaches the apparatus, configured to:
correct the spine number other than the spine number edited by comparing positional information of the designated position with positional information of anatomical landmarks of vertebrae adjacent to the vertebra at the designated position to determine a spine number sequence (Yang Page 6: “Given the image I, the DI2IN generates one probability map P (vi|I) for the center of each individual vertebra i with high confidence. The vertebrae will be located at the peak positions vi of probability maps. However, we find that these probability maps are not perfect yet: some probability maps don’t have response or have very low response at the ground truth locations because of similar image appearances of several vertebrae (e.g. T1 ∼ T12). In order to handle the problem of missing response, we propose a message passing scheme to effectively enhance the probability maps by utilizing the prior knowledge of the spine structure … After several iterations of message passing, the vertebra with missing response can be compensated with the aggregated messages from its neighboring vertebrae”; Yang Fig. 4); and
when there is a vacancy in the spine number, add a vacant spine number corresponding to the vacancy as the spine number of the vertebra at the designated position (Yang Page 6: “Given the image I, the DI2IN generates one probability map P (vi|I) for the center of each individual vertebra i with high confidence. The vertebrae will be located at the peak positions vi of probability maps. However, we find that these probability maps are not perfect yet: some probability maps don’t have response or have very low response at the ground truth locations because of similar image appearances of several vertebrae (e.g. T1 ∼ T12). In order to handle the problem of missing response, we propose a message passing scheme to effectively enhance the probability maps by utilizing the prior knowledge of the spine structure … After several iterations of message passing, the vertebra with missing response can be compensated with the aggregated messages from its neighboring vertebrae”; Yang Fig. 4).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the labeling of incorrectly missing vertebrae labels as taught by Yang with the apparatus of Ayed and Krishnan because it would improve the apparatus by allowing it to automatically correct when a label has been detected as missing. This motivation for the combination of Ayed, Krishnan, and Yang is supported by KSR exemplary rationale (D) Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results. MPEP 2141 (III).
Regarding claim 3, Ayed discloses the apparatus, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to:
acquire the designated position in the medical image (Ayed [0011]: “For example, based on initial user input (e.g., identifying a vertebra), the system can automatically provide first annotations to a spine image and present the spine image including the first annotations for user review”), wherein the designated position is designated by the input operation of adding the spine number (Ayed [0062]: “An example computer-implemented method disclosed herein includes a) obtaining user input identifying a point corresponding to a vertebra on a spinal image. In response to the user input, the computer-implemented method also includes b) using the user input to determine a number of viewable vertebrae on the spinal image”);
acquire anatomical landmark information in the vertebra adjacent to the vertebra at the designated position (Ayed [0062]: “The annotations anatomically label and distinguish between two or more immediately adjacent vertebrae on the spinal image using contextual-information feature vectors”); and
add the spine number of the vertebra at the designated position based on the input operation and the acquired anatomical landmark information (Ayed [0062]: “The annotations anatomically label and distinguish between two or more immediately adjacent vertebrae on the spinal image using contextual-information feature vectors. The contextual-information feature vectors encode the identified points with information of at least one of size, shape, orientation, or relationships to neighboring structures. The computer-implemented method also includes e) receiving a first subsequent user input on the previously generated annotations identifying a point corresponding to an error within the previously generated annotations. In response to receiving the first subsequent user input, the computer-implemented method also includes f) updating the identified points and contextual-information feature vectors for the updated identified points, automatically generating subsequent annotations on the spinal image using the updated contextual-information feature vectors”).
Regarding claim 5, Ayed discloses the apparatus, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to:
when the spine number is shifted, with reference to the added spine number of the vertebra at the designated position, correct other spine numbers located on a side of the spine number overlapping the spine number of the vertebra at the designated position and in a same region as the added spine number of the vertebra at the added designated position (Ayed [0023]: “For example, as shown in FIG. 4, the user 114 identifies and/or selects the L3 vertebra 304, which the first annotations 302 failed to label. In some examples, the annotator 104 may receive the second user input and generate second annotations 402 based on a new set of spatially ordered points, as shown in Equation 2, where x.sub.new.sup.i corresponds to the coordinate vector of the new point entered by the user 114 (second user input, new candidate)”); and
display the added spine number of the vertebra at the added designated position and the corrected spine numbers (Ayed Fig. 4: shows the display of the spine numbers).
Regarding claim 6, Ayed does not explicitly disclose the apparatus, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to:
determine whether or not the designated position is located at a boundary between different regions in the spine based on the anatomical landmark information;
when the designated position is located at the boundary between the different regions, generate a plurality of options regarding the spine number of the vertebra at the designated position based on the anatomical landmark information in the vertebra adjacent to the vertebra at the designated position;
and select the spine number to be added from the plurality of generated options.
However, Krishnan teaches the apparatus, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to:
determine whether or not the designated position is located at a boundary between different regions in the spine based on the anatomical landmark information (Krishnan [0054]: “In one implementation, the labels 408 are automatically assigned to the landmarks 406. The labels may be assigned in accordance with a standard naming convention. For example, in the context of labeling the individual vertebrae of a human spine, the standard C1-C7, T1-T12, L1-L5 and S1-S5 naming convention may be followed to label the 7 cervical, 12 thoracic, 5 lumbar and 5 sacral vertebrae respectively. Other types of naming conventions may also be applied. The labeling direction may be, for example, in the head-to-feet direction starting at the first thoracic vertebra T1”; Krishnan [0055]: “Optionally, instead of performing the automatic label assignment algorithm repeatedly on all series of images, detected landmarks in one or more label scout images (or localizers) or a "key series" may be automatically labeled. Such automatically assigned labels may then be propagated (or shared) and displayed in other images of all series that share a common frame of reference with the scout images or "key series"”);
when the designated position is located at the boundary between the different regions, generate a plurality of options regarding the spine number of the vertebra at the designated position based on the anatomical landmark information in the vertebra adjacent to the vertebra at the designated position (Krishnan [0056]: “In addition, the user may insert one or more additional vertebra landmarks or labels, import to the findings navigator, revert to original vertebra labels or delete one or more vertebra landmarks or labels, by selecting respective toolbar button 515c, 515d, 515e, 515f or 515g”);
and select the spine number to be added from the plurality of generated options (Krishnan [0058]: “Upon receiving the user selection, a drop-down menu 502 offering a list of pre-determined labels may be presented near the selected vertebra to enable the user to select a suitable label”).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate determining if there is a boundary based on anatomical information because it would improve the method by allowing the apparatus to update other vertebrae labels correctly, as otherwise it would update the other vertebrae with labels that are in the wrong category (ex. labeling a cervical vertebrae as a thoracic vertebrae). This motivation for the combination of Ayed and Krishnan is supported by KSR exemplary rationale (D) Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results. MPEP 2141 (III).
Regarding claim 7, Ayed does not explicitly disclose the apparatus, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to:
when the selected spine number overlaps with the spine number in the anatomical landmark information of the vertebra adjacent to the vertebra at the designated position, correct the spine number located in a same region as the selected spine number; and
display the plurality of options regarding the spine number and the corrected spine number.
However, Krishnan teaches the apparatus, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to:
when the selected spine number overlaps with the spine number in the anatomical landmark information of the vertebra adjacent to the vertebra at the designated position, correct the spine number located in a same region as the selected spine number (Krishnan [0059]: “The other neighboring labels 520 may also be automatically updated in response to the changes made to label 408. In one implementation, the neighboring labels 520 are automatically updated in accordance with the sort order defined by the naming convention used. For example, if a vertebra is relabeled with a new name (e.g., T3), other labels above it (e.g., C1-C2, T1, T2) or below it (e.g., T4-T12, L1-L15, S1-S5) may be automatically updated to be in consistent with the sort order defined by the standard naming convention”); and
display the plurality of options regarding the spine number and the corrected spine number (Krishnan [0058]: “Upon receiving the user selection, a drop-down menu 502 offering a list of pre-determined labels may be presented near the selected vertebra to enable the user to select a suitable label”).
It would have been obvious to combine Ayed and Krishnan for the same reasons as for claim 6 above.
Regarding claim 8, Ayed discloses the apparatus, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to:
acquire the designated position in the medical image (Ayed [0011]: “For example, based on initial user input (e.g., identifying a vertebra), the system can automatically provide first annotations to a spine image and present the spine image including the first annotations for user review”), wherein the designated position is designated by the input operation of deleting the spine number (Ayed [0035]: “In some examples, the second user input identifies a false positive in the first annotations, a false negative in the first annotations and/or an incorrect label in the first annotations. In some examples, a false positive occurs when the annotator 104 detects a vertebra where none exists”);
acquire anatomical landmark information of the vertebra at the designated position (Ayed [0017]: “In some examples, the feature vector contains image statistics within several box-shaped image patches of different orientations and/or scales. Such patch-based features may encode contextual information about the vertebrae and/or neighboring structures (e.g., size, shape, orientation, relationships to neighboring structures, etc.)”); and
delete the spine number of the vertebra at the designated position based on the input operation and the acquired anatomical landmark information (Ayed [0035]: “In some examples, the user 114 identifies an error in the first annotations via a single-click correction using the data input 108. For example, if the first annotations fail to and/or incorrectly label the L3 vertebra, the user 114 can click on the L3 vertebra and/or enter a correct label for the L3 vertebra”).
Regarding claim 9, Ayed discloses the apparatus, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to:
acquire the anatomical landmark information in the vertebra adjacent to the vertebra at the designated position (Ayed [0062]: “The annotations anatomically label and distinguish between two or more immediately adjacent vertebrae on the spinal image using contextual-information feature vectors”); and
based on the anatomical landmark information in the vertebra adjacent to the vertebra at the designated position, shift the spine number of the vertebra at the designated position to correct other spine numbers in a same region as the deleted spine number of the vertebra at the designated position (Ayed [0062]: “The annotations anatomically label and distinguish between two or more immediately adjacent vertebrae on the spinal image using contextual-information feature vectors. The contextual-information feature vectors encode the identified points with information of at least one of size, shape, orientation, or relationships to neighboring structures. The computer-implemented method also includes e) receiving a first subsequent user input on the previously generated annotations identifying a point corresponding to an error within the previously generated annotations. In response to receiving the first subsequent user input, the computer-implemented method also includes f) updating the identified points and contextual-information feature vectors for the updated identified points, automatically generating subsequent annotations on the spinal image using the updated contextual-information feature vectors”), and display the corrected spin numbers (Ayed [0061]: “In some examples, the processor is to also cause the spinal image having the second annotations to be displayed at the user interface”).
Regarding claim 10, Ayed does not explicitly disclose the apparatus, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to:
determine whether or not the designated position is located at a boundary between different regions in the spine based on the anatomical landmark information;
when the designated position is located at the boundary between the different regions, generate a plurality of options regarding the spine number of the vertebra at the designated position based on the anatomical landmark information in the vertebra at the designated position and the anatomical landmark information in the vertebra adjacent to the vertebra at the designated position; and
select the spine number to be deleted from the plurality of generated options.
However, Krishnan teaches the apparatus, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to:
determine whether or not the designated position is located at a boundary between different regions in the spine based on the anatomical landmark information (Krishnan [0054]: “In one implementation, the labels 408 are automatically assigned to the landmarks 406. The labels may be assigned in accordance with a standard naming convention. For example, in the context of labeling the individual vertebrae of a human spine, the standard C1-C7, T1-T12, L1-L5 and S1-S5 naming convention may be followed to label the 7 cervical, 12 thoracic, 5 lumbar and 5 sacral vertebrae respectively. Other types of naming conventions may also be applied. The labeling direction may be, for example, in the head-to-feet direction starting at the first thoracic vertebra T1”; Krishnan [0055]: “Optionally, instead of performing the automatic label assignment algorithm repeatedly on all series of images, detected landmarks in one or more label scout images (or localizers) or a "key series" may be automatically labeled. Such automatically assigned labels may then be propagated (or shared) and displayed in other images of all series that share a common frame of reference with the scout images or "key series"”);
when the designated position is located at the boundary between the different regions, generate a plurality of options regarding the spine number of the vertebra at the designated position based on the anatomical landmark information in the vertebra at the designated position and the anatomical landmark information in the vertebra adjacent to the vertebra at the designated position (Krishnan [0056]: “In addition, the user may insert one or more additional vertebra landmarks or labels, import to the findings navigator, revert to original vertebra labels or delete one or more vertebra landmarks or labels, by selecting respective toolbar button 515c, 515d, 515e, 515f or 515g”); and
select the spine number to be deleted from the plurality of generated options (Krishnan [0058]: “Upon receiving the user selection, a drop-down menu 502 offering a list of pre-determined labels may be presented near the selected vertebra to enable the user to select a suitable label”).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate determining if there is a boundary based on anatomical information because it would improve the method by allowing the apparatus to update other vertebrae labels correctly, as otherwise it would update the other vertebrae with labels that are in the wrong category (ex. labeling a cervical vertebrae as a thoracic vertebrae). This motivation for the combination of Ayed and Krishnan is supported by KSR exemplary rationale (D) Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results. MPEP 2141 (III).
Regarding claim 11, Ayed discloses the apparatus, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to:
when the selected spine number overlaps with the spine number in the anatomical landmark information in the vertebra adjacent to the vertebra at the designated location, correct other spine numbers located in a same region as the selected spine number (Ayed [0023]: “For example, as shown in FIG. 4, the user 114 identifies and/or selects the L3 vertebra 304, which the first annotations 302 failed to label. In some examples, the annotator 104 may receive the second user input and generate second annotations 402 based on a new set of spatially ordered points, as shown in Equation 2, where x.sub.new.sup.i corresponds to the coordinate vector of the new point entered by the user 114 (second user input, new candidate)”); and
display the plurality of options regarding the spine number and the corrected spine numbers (Ayed Fig. 4: shows the corrected spine numbers).
Regarding claim 12, Ayed does not explicitly disclose the apparatus, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to move the spine number based on the input operation of moving the spine number.
However, Krishnan teaches the apparatus, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to move the spine number based on the input operation of moving the spine number (Krishnan [0056]: “The user may choose to turn the automatic labeling on or off by selecting the menu option 512. In addition, the user may also move the label, select individual labels for editing or change the font size or type of the label text”).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate determining if there is a boundary based on anatomical information because it would improve the method by allowing the user to move the labels. This motivation for the combination of Ayed and Krishnan is supported by KSR exemplary rationale (D) Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results. MPEP 2141 (III).
Regarding claim 13, Ayed does not explicitly disclose the apparatus, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to:
acquire the designated position that is a position after movement of the spine number;
acquire the spine number at the designated position and the anatomical landmark information of the vertebra adjacent to the vertebra at the designated position that is the position after movement of the spine number; and
based on the spine number at the designated position and the anatomical landmark information of the vertebra adjacent to the vertebra at the designated position that is the position after the movement of the spine number, generate a plurality of options regarding the spine number of the vertebra at the designated position that is the position after the movement of the spine number.
However, Krishnan teaches the processing circuitry is further configured to:
acquire the designated position that is a position after movement of the spine number (Krishnan [0056]: “The user may choose to turn the automatic labeling on or off by selecting the menu option 512. In addition, the user may also move the label, select individual labels for editing or change the font size or type of the label text”);
acquire the spine number at the designated position and the anatomical landmark information of the vertebra adjacent to the vertebra at the designated position that is the position after movement of the spine number; and
based on the spine number at the designated position and the anatomical landmark information of the vertebra adjacent to the vertebra at the designated position that is the position after the movement of the spine number, generate a plurality of options regarding the spine number of the vertebra at the designated position that is the position after the movement of the spine number.
It would have been obvious to combine Ayed and Krishnan for the same reasons as for claim 12 above.
Regarding claim 14, Ayed does not explicitly disclose the apparatus, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to:
generate and display a selection screen for allowing the user to select the spine number from the plurality of options regarding the spine number; and
and receive selection of the spine number via the selection screen.
However, Krishnan teaches the apparatus, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to:
generate and display a selection screen for allowing the user to select the spine number from the plurality of options regarding the spine number (Krishnan [0058]: “Upon receiving the user selection, a drop-down menu 502 offering a list of pre-determined labels may be presented near the selected vertebra to enable the user to select a suitable label”); and
and receive selection of the spine number via the selection screen (Krishnan [0058]: “In response to a user selecting one of these vertebral segments (e.g., T), a second level of labels naming particular vertebrae (e.g., T1, T2, . . . , T12, etc.) of the selected segment may be displayed”).
It would have been obvious to combine Ayed and Krishnan for the same reasons as for claim 12 above.
Regarding claim 15, Ayed does not explicitly disclose the apparatus of, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to select the spine number of the vertebra at the designated position after the movement from the plurality of options based on the anatomical landmark information in the vertebra adjacent to the vertebra at the designated position.
However, Krishnan teaches the apparatus of, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to select the spine number of the vertebra at the designated position after the movement from the plurality of options based on the anatomical landmark information in the vertebra adjacent to the vertebra at the designated position (Krishnan [0059]: “The other neighboring labels 520 may also be automatically updated in response to the changes made to label 408”).
It would have been obvious to combine Ayed and Krishnan for the same reasons as for claim 12 above.
Regarding claim 16, Ayed discloses the apparatus, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to:
display the spine number of the vertebra (Ayed [0061]: “In some examples, the processor is to also cause the spinal image having the second annotations to be displayed at the user interface”).
Ayed does not explicitly disclose the apparatus, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to:
determine, based on the anatomical landmark information adjacent to the vertebra at the designated position, whether or not there is the spine number that overlaps with the spine number of the vertebra at the designated position; and
when there is the spine number that overlaps with the spine number of the vertebra at the designated position, correct the overlapping spine number based on the anatomical landmark information adjacent to the spine number of the vertebra at the designated position.
However, Krishnan teaches the apparatus, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to:
determine, based on the anatomical landmark information adjacent to the vertebra at the designated position, whether or not there is the spine number that overlaps with the spine number of the vertebra at the designated position (Krishnan [0059]: “The other neighboring labels 520 may also be automatically updated in response to the changes made to label 408. In one implementation, the neighboring labels 520 are automatically updated in accordance with the sort order defined by the naming convention used. For example, if a vertebra is relabeled with a new name (e.g., T3), other labels above it (e.g., C1-C2, T1, T2) or below it (e.g., T4-T12, L1-L15, S1-S5) may be automatically updated to be in consistent with the sort order defined by the standard naming convention”); and
when there is the spine number that overlaps with the spine number of the vertebra at the designated position, correct the overlapping spine number based on the anatomical landmark information adjacent to the spine number of the vertebra at the designated position (Krishnan [0059]: “The other neighboring labels 520 may also be automatically updated in response to the changes made to label 408. In one implementation, the neighboring labels 520 are automatically updated in accordance with the sort order defined by the naming convention used. For example, if a vertebra is relabeled with a new name (e.g., T3), other labels above it (e.g., C1-C2, T1, T2) or below it (e.g., T4-T12, L1-L15, S1-S5) may be automatically updated to be in consistent with the sort order defined by the standard naming convention”).
It would have been obvious to combine Ayed and Krishnan for the same reasons as for claim 12 above.
Regarding claim 17, Ayed discloses the apparatus, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to display one of the spine numbers among the plurality of options in a highlighted manner (Ayed [0061]: “In some examples, the processor is to also cause the spinal image having the second annotations to be displayed at the user interface”).
Response to Arguments
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 101
Applicant's arguments filed 02/05/2026 with regards to the 101 rejection have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on page 9-10 of Applicant’s arguments and remarks that the comparison of positional information derived from anatomical landmarks is not a mental process, but rather a machine-based spatial computation performed on medical image data. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The human mind is capable of identifying the positions of different anatomical landmarks in an image, comparing those positions, and using that comparison to correct the spine number associated with a vertebrae. As such, this claim limitation is a mental process. Further, even if acquiring anatomical landmarks and positional information was not a mental process, such data gathering would be extra-solution activity. Therefore, the claim fails at Step 2A, Prong One of the 101 analysis.
Applicant argues on page 10 of Applicant’s arguments and remarks that if the claim recites an abstract idea, it integrates the idea into a practical application under Step 2A, Prong Two. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Besides the processing circuitry, the claim is made up entirely of mental processes, which is an abstract idea and judicial exception. As such, there is no additional element of the claim that transforms it into a practical application of the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.04 (II)(A)(2) (“Because a judicial exception is not eligible subject matter, Bilski, 561 U.S. at 601, 95 USPQ2d at 1005-06 (quoting Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. at 309, 206 USPQ at 197 (1980)), if there are no additional claim elements besides the judicial exception, or if the additional claim elements merely recite another judicial exception, that is insufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See, e.g., RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co., 855 F.3d 1322, 1327, 122 USPQ2d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ("Adding one abstract idea (math) to another abstract idea (encoding and decoding) does not render the claim non-abstract"); Genetic Techs. Ltd. v. Merial LLC, 818 F.3d 1369, 1376, 118 USPQ2d 1541, 1546 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (eligibility "cannot be furnished by the unpatentable law of nature (or natural phenomenon or abstract idea) itself.").”) Therefore, the claim fails at Step 2A, Prong Two of the 101 analysis.
Applicant argues on page 11 of Applicant’s arguments and remarks that for similar reasons as for Step 2A, Prong Two, the claim satisfies the requirements of Step 2B. Examiner respectfully disagrees. As stated above, besides the processing circuitry, the claim is made up entirely of mental processes. Processing circuitry is generic computer hardware that does not amount to significantly more. Therefore, the claims elements individually nor the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more and the claim fails at Step 2B of the 101 analysis. For these reasons, the claim recites ineligible subject matter and the 101 rejection is maintained.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC §§ 102, 103
Applicant argues on page 13 of Applicant’s arguments and remarks that Ayed does not disclose when there is no vacancy in the spine number, shifting and adding the spine number in the vertebra adjacent to the vertebra at the designated position as the spine number of the vertebra at the designated position. As mapped above, Ayed discloses this in paragraph [0011] (“In some examples, the user can provide input (e.g., identify new and/or improperly labeled vertebra and/or candidates) by clicking on a false positive, a false negative, a non-labeled and/or mislabeled vertebra and/or disc, etc.”), paragraph [0022] (“As shown in FIG. 3, some of the first annotations 302 generated may contain errors. For example, the first annotations 302 failed to label the L3 vertebra 304 (e.g., a false negative), the first annotations 302 labeled the L5 vertebra 306 as both L4 and L5 (false positive) and the first annotations 302 incorrectly labeled the L4 vertebra 308 as the L3 vertebra (incorrect label)”, and in figs. 3-4. As can be seen in fig. 3, there is no vacancy in the spine number but there is an error (false negative) that is detected. After receiving an input, the apparatus corrects the spine numbers by shifting and adding the spine number to the vertebra adjacent to the designated position (see fig. 4). As such, Ayed does teach this limitation.
Regarding the other limitations argued by applicant, including the newly added limitation, they have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 AIDAN KEUP whose telephone number is (703)756-4578. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00-4:00.
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.
/AIDAN KEUP/ Examiner, Art Unit 2666 /Molly Wilburn/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2666
Prosecution Insights