DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments to the claims submitted 11/12/2025 have been recorded. As such Examiner’s previous objections to claim 7 are withdrawn. Additionally the claims no longer invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) interpretation.
Applicant has amended claims 1-2, and 4-10; and canceled claim 3; claims 1-2 and 4-10 are currently pending.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-2 and 4-10 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.
Therefore this action is made FINAL.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 11/24/2025 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) has/have been considered by the examiner.
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) 1-2, 4-5 and 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sarrut (Sarrut, David, and Sébastien Clippe. "Fast DRR generation for intensity-based 2D/3D image registration in radiotherapy." LIRIS UMR 5205 (2003). From applicant’s admitted prior art.) in view of Birkfellner (Birkfellner W, Seemann R, Figl M, Hummel J, Ede C, Homolka P, Yang X, Niederer P, Bergmann H. Wobbled splatting—a fast perspective volume rendering method for simulation of x-ray images from CT. Physics in Medicine & Biology. 2005 Apr 14;50(9):N73.).
Regarding claim 1, Sarrut discloses A radiation therapy device comprising a processor configured to execute a program to: (Sarrut Section 4.2 Geometrical decomposition – last ¶ - found on p. 9; implementing the method on a common PC, which would include a processor executing a program.) acquire a condition of X-ray imaging in a treatment stage and a three-dimensional image of a patient imaged before the treatment stage; (Sarrut Section 2 Background - ¶1 – found on p. 4; patient reference CT (3D x-ray) obtained prior to a treatment phase is disclosed. Portal Imaging (PI) (Section 1 Introduction ¶6 and 8 – found on p. 2-3, and Fig. 1 done at time of treatment) is compared to the CT.) calculate a projection position when (Sarrut Section 4 Fast DRR generation ¶1 and 4.1 Principle ¶1-2 – found on p. 7; a set of DRR (projections of 3D x-rays into 2D x-rays) are created. They are generated for a set of plausible rotations (condition of x-ray imaging). These DRR are then projected onto the same plane as an obtained x-ray.) generate an element projection image for each pixel when (Sarrut Section 4 Fast DRR generation ¶1 and 4.1 Principle ¶1-2 – found on p. 7; a set of DRR (projections of 3D x-rays into 2D x-rays) are created. They are generated for a set of plausible rotations (condition of x-ray imaging). These DRR are then projected onto the same plane as an obtained x-ray (element projection image).) perform a synthesis process for the generated element projection image for each pixel on the basis of the calculated projection position to generate a reconstructed image virtually reproducing the X-ray fluoroscopic image from the three-dimensional image, (Sarrut Section 4.2 Geometrical decomposition – bullet points found on p. 8 and 9; projections are made from the plausible DRR to the desired plane. Then the projections are scaled and out of plane projection is calculated (synthesis process) to obtain the desired view.) wherein the generating of the element projection image for each pixel comprises: generating an element projection image of a reference pixel included in the three- dimensional image: (Sarrut Section 4 Fast DRR generation ¶1 and 4.1 Principle ¶1-2 – found on p. 7; plausible/ reference DRR are created.) and generating, from the generated element projection image of the reference pixel included in the three-dimensional image, an element projection image of a pixel other than the reference pixel by performing a two-dimensional conversion process for the generated element projection image of the reference pixel to convert the generated element projection image of the reference pixel to the element projection image of the pixel other than the reference pixel. (Sarrut Section 4.2 Geometrical decomposition – bullet points found on p. 8 and 9 and appendix C – found on p. 21; projections are made from the plausible DRR to the desired plane (P1 to P2 rectification matrix). It can be seen in appendix C that F is a 2D transform. Therefore pixels from the CT scan are used to create DRR (reference image from refence pixel) which is used to create a projection image at a different view utilizing a 2D conversion.)
Sarrut does not explicitly disclose Calculate a projection position when each of pixels included in the three-dimensional image is projected onto a two-dimensional X-ray fluoroscopic image generated in the X-ray imaging on the basis of the condition of the X-ray imaging (emphasis added).
Birkfellner, however, discloses Calculate a projection position when each of pixels included in the three-dimensional image is projected onto a two-dimensional X-ray fluoroscopic image generated in the X-ray imaging on the basis of the condition of the X-ray imaging; (Birkfellner Section 2. Materials and Methods – 2.1 Splat rendering ¶1-3 and equations (1)-(3); every voxel (3D CT pixel) is projected to produce a DRR/ 2D x-ray image. A condition of x-ray imaging is disclosed as viewpoint distance f. See also Fig. 2.)
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of Sarrut with teachings of Birkfellner by including the projection of each pixel in the 3d image onto a 2D x-ray in order to have the highest possible SNR for the DRR..
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Sarrut and Birkfellner disclose the claim limitations with regards to claim 1, as described above. They further disclose wherein the processor is further configured to perform a positioning process for the patient on the basis of the generated reconstructed image. (Sarrut Section 1 Introduction ¶7-8- found on p. 3; utilizing DRR to correct set up errors for patients is disclosed.)
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Sarrut and Birkfellner disclose the claim limitations with regards to claim 1, as described above. They further disclose wherein the reference pixel is a pixel of a position of an isocenter in radiation therapy. (Sarrut Section 4.2 Geometric decomposition – first bullet point on p. 9; referencing isocenter is disclosed which makes sure the proper scale is used.)
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Sarrut and Birkfellner disclose the claim limitations with regards to claim 1, as described above. They further disclose wherein the processor is configured to virtually arrange the three-dimensional image between a radiation source for performing the X-ray imaging and a radiation detector, generate the element projection image of the other pixel by performing a conversion process of enlarging the element projection image of the reference pixel when the other pixel is closer to the radiation source than the reference pixel, (Sarrut Section 4.2 Geometrical decomposition – bullet points found on p. 8 and 9, Fig. 2, and appendix e; the difference between c2 and c3 is the distance to isocenter. It can be seen in figure 2 that equates to a difference in distance to the radiation source. It can be seen that c3 is closer to the radiation source than c1/c2 (the reference). A conversion that utilizes scaling is calculated K – see appendix E.) and generate the element projection image of the other pixel by performing a conversion process of reducing the element projection image of the reference pixel when the other pixel is closer to the radiation detector than the reference pixel. (Sarrut Section 4.2 Geometrical decomposition – bullet points found on p. 8 and 9, Fig. 2, and appendix e; the difference between c2 and c3 is the distance to isocenter. It can be seen in figure 2 that equates to a difference in distance to the radiation source. A conversion that utilizes scaling is calculated K – see appendix E.))
Regarding claim 8, it is the corresponding medical image processing device to claim 1 and is rejected for similar reasons.
Regarding claim 9, it is the corresponding therapy method to claim 1 and is rejected for similar reasons.
Regarding claim 10, it is the corresponding non-transitory computer-readable storage medium claim to claim 1 and the rejection is incorporated herein. The combination of Sarrut and Birkfellner additionally disclose A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a program for causing a computer to (Sarrut Section 4.2 Geometrical decomposition – last ¶ - found on p. 9; implementing the method on a common PC. Which would include programs stored in memory.)
Claim(s) 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sarrut (Sarrut, David, and Sébastien Clippe. "Fast DRR generation for intensity-based 2D/3D image registration in radiotherapy." LIRIS UMR 5205 (2003). From applicant’s admitted prior art.) in view of Birkfellner (Birkfellner W, Seemann R, Figl M, Hummel J, Ede C, Homolka P, Yang X, Niederer P, Bergmann H. Wobbled splatting—a fast perspective volume rendering method for simulation of x-ray images from CT. Physics in Medicine & Biology. 2005 Apr 14;50(9):N73.) and Fu (Pub. No. US20080159612A1).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Sarrut and Birkfellner disclose the claim limitations with regards to claim 1, as described above.
The combination of Sarrut and Birkfellner does not explicitly disclose wherein the element projection image generator is configured to calculate a luminance value of the element projection image of the other pixel on the basis of a ratio between a luminance value of the reference pixel included in the three-dimensional image and a luminance value of the other pixel.
Fu, however, discloses wherein the element projection image generator is configured to calculate a luminance value of the element projection image of the other pixel on the basis of a ratio between a luminance value of the reference pixel included in the three-dimensional image and a luminance value of the other pixel. (Fu ¶68-72; adjusting the attenuation weight in DRR images is disclosed. It is done by comparing the difference in contrast between bone and soft tissue pixels.)
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the radiation therapy device of the combination of Sarrut and Birkfellner with teachings of Fu by including the attenuation weights as in Fu in order to match 2D x-ray contrast which is different than CT due to different effective energy used during acquisition (Fu ¶68).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Sarrut, Birkfellner, and Fu disclose the claim limitations with regards to claim 6, as described above. They further disclose wherein the element projection image generator is configured to calculate the luminance value of the element projection image of the other pixel by multiplying the luminance value of the element projection image of the reference pixel by a ratio of the luminance value of the other pixel to a luminance value of the reference pixel. (Fu ¶68-69; adjusting the attenuation weight in DRR images is disclosed. It is done by comparing the difference in contrast between bone and soft tissue pixels.)
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MEREDITH TAYLOR whose telephone number is (571)270-5805. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:30-5. Examiner’s email is Meredith.taylor@uspto.gov.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Vincent Rudolph can be reached at (571)272-8243. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MEREDITH TAYLOR/Examiner, Art Unit 2671
/VINCENT RUDOLPH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2671
Prosecution Insights