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
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.
Claims 1 and 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vaillant et al. (US 20210282731)) in view of Aoyama (US 20220012878).
Regarding claim 1, Vaillant teaches a medical image processing apparatus comprising: processing circuitry configured to obtain a graph of an index value related to a blood flow based on a Computed Tomography (CT) image (p0015: the FFR may be determined via CT angiographic imaging alone and p0066) and a graph of an index value related to the blood flow based on an angiography image (p0016:FFR may be determined via invasive angiographic imaging alone);
Vaillant does not explicitly disclose determine, on a basis of shapes of the graphs of the index values related to the blood flow, a target position for performing a position alignment between the graph of the index value related to the blood flow based on the CT image and the graph of the index value related to the blood flow based on the angiography image; and perform, on a basis of the target position, the position alignment between the graph of the index value related to the blood flow based on the CT image and the graph of the index value related to the blood flow based on the angiography image.
Aoyama teaches determine, on a basis of shapes of the graphs of the index values related to the blood flow (P0186: FFR values are displayed as a graph,… FFR data can be displayed as measured values and/or as gradients), a target position for performing a position alignment between the graph of the index value related to the blood flow based on the CT image and the graph of the index value related to the blood flow based on the angiography image (p0229: calculate the differences between the FFR values and the WSS values at the different points in time by performing a position aligning process so as to display an image indicating the differences in the FFR and p0358); and perform, on a basis of the target position, the position alignment between the graph of the index value related to the blood flow based on the CT image and the graph of the index value related to the blood flow based on the angiography image (p0229: calculate the differences between the FFR values and the WSS values at the different points in time by performing a position aligning process so as to display an image indicating the differences in the FFR and p0358).
Vaillant and Aoyama are combinable because they both deal with medical image processing system. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Vaillant with the teaching of Aoyama for purpose of assisting diagnosing and treatment planning processes (p0003).
Regarding claim 18, The structural elements of apparatus claim 1 perform all of the steps of method claim 18. Thus, claim 18 is rejected for the same reasons discussed in the rejection of claim 1.
Claim 19 has been analyzed and rejected with regard to claim 1 and in accordance with Vaillant’s further teaching on: A computer-readable memory that contains instructions, which when executed by a processor perform steps in a method (p0039: computer device).
Claims 2 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vaillant and Aoyama as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Beauchemin (US 20230206425).
Regarding claim 2, Vaillant in view of Aoyama teaches the medical image processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to obtain the index value related to the blood flow in each of various positions in a blood vessel rendered in the CT image (Aoyama: p0061:the calculating function 155b calculates the FFR and the WSS in various positions…) and the index value related to the blood flow in each of the various positions in the blood vessel rendered in the angiography image (Aoyama: p0061 and p0059: the medical image storage apparatus 120), and
Vaillant in view of Aoyama does not explicitly disclose determine the target position on a basis of a difference between the index values related to the blood flow with respect to each of the various positions in the blood vessel rendered in the CT image.
Beauchemin teaches determine the target position on a basis of a difference between the index values related to the blood flow with respect to each of the various positions in the blood vessel rendered in the CT image (p0128:control unit 105 may determine a difference in imaging position data between the current image and the image used for initial alignment at 1120).
Vaillant in view of Aoyama and Beauchemin are combinable because they both deal with medical image processing system. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Vaillant in view of Aoyama with the teaching of Beauchemin for purpose provided a system for alignment and comparison of a CAD drawing that includes one or more control sections with multiple images of a part (p0008).
Regarding claim 5, Vaillant in view of Aoyama teaches the medical image processing apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to specify a blood vessel position corresponding to the target position in the blood vessel (p0083: the single angiographic projection having a least amount of vessel superimposition of the plurality of angiographic projections), and perform the position alignment between the graph of the index value related to the blood flow based on the CT image and the graph of the index value related to the blood flow based on the angiography image, by performing the position alignment at a feature point in a vicinity of the blood vessel position (Aoyama: p0229: calculate the differences between the FFR values and the WSS values at the different points in time by performing a position aligning process so as to display an image indicating the differences in the FFR and p0358).
The rational applied to the rejection of claim 1 has been incorporated herein.
Claims 7-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vaillant in view of Aoyama as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yamamoto (US 20220183642).
Regarding claim 7, Vaillant in view of Aoyama does not explicitly disclose the medical image processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to display, in a superimposed manner, the graph of the index value related to the blood flow based on the CT image and the graph of the index value related to the blood flow based on the angiography image on which the position alignment has been performed.
Yamamoto teaches wherein the processing circuitry is configured to display, in a superimposed manner, the graph of the index value related to the blood flow based on the CT image and the graph of the index value related to the blood flow based on the angiography image on which the position alignment has been performed (p0005:feature points reflected in both the blood vessel image and the fluoroscopic moving image, and a superimposed image (composite image) in which a blood vessel image is superimposed on a fluoroscopic..).
Vaillant in view of Aoyama and Yamamoto are combinable because they both deal with medical image processing system. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Vaillant in view of Aoyama with the teaching of Yamamoto for purpose provided a system for capable of suppressing a positional deviation between a blood vessel extracted image and an X-ray image in the vicinity of a device introduced in a blood vessel (p0007).
Regarding claim 8, Vaillant in view of Aoyama and Yamamoto teaches the medical image processing apparatus according to claim 7, wherein, together with the graphs displayed in the superimposed manner, the processing circuitry is configured to further display information about a precision level of the position alignment (Yamamoto: fig. 2).
The rational applied to the rejection of claim 7 has been incorporated herein.
Regarding claim 9, Vaillant in view of Aoyama and Yamamoto teaches the medical image processing apparatus according to claim 7, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to display the graphs so as to be kept in correspondence with a position of a blood vessel in a display image rendering the blood vessel (Yamamoto: fig. 2).
The rational applied to the rejection of claim 7 has been incorporated herein.
Claims 3 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vaillant in view of Aoyama and Beauchemin as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Yamanoto (US 20220183642).
Regarding claim 3, Vaillant in view of Aoyama and Beauchemin does not each the medical image processing apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to determine the target position with respect to each of blood vessel branches of the blood vessel, and perform, with respect to each of the blood vessel branches, the position alignment between the graph of the index value related to the blood flow based on the CT image and the graph of the index value related to the blood flow based on the angiography image.
Yamamoto teaches wherein the processing circuitry is configured to determine the target position with respect to each of blood vessel branches of the blood vessel, and perform, with respect to each of the blood vessel branches, the position alignment between the graph of the index value related to the blood flow based on the CT image and the graph of the index value related to the blood flow based on the angiography image (fig. 2)
Vaillant in view of Aoyama and Beauchemin and Yamamoto are combinable because they both deal with medical image processing system. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Vaillant in view of Aoyama and Beauchemin with the teaching of Yamamoto for purpose provided a system for capable of suppressing a positional deviation between a blood vessel extracted image and an X-ray image in the vicinity of a device introduced in a blood vessel (p0007).
Regarding claim 6, Vaillant in view of Aoyama, Beauchemin and Yamamoto teaches the medical image processing apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to perform the position alignment between the graph of the index value related to the blood flow based on the CT image and the graph of the index value related to the blood flow based on the angiography image, by performing the position alignment at a feature point in a vicinity of the target position in the graphs (Yamamoto :p0014: composite image by aligning positions of the X-ray image and the blood vessel extracted image, based on the device reflected in the region of interest set by the region of interest setting unit and the blood vessel image reflected in the blood vessel extracted image).
Claim 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vaillant in view of Aoyama as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Fukuda et al. (US 20190216427).
Regarding claim 4, Vaillant in view of Aoyama teaches the medical image processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to obtain, as for the graph of the index value related to the blood flow based on the CT image and the graph of the index value related to the blood flow based on the angiography image (p0015-16: FFR and Aoyama: p0186: FFR values are displayed as a graph)
Vaillant in view of Aoyama does not teach the graphs calculated in a substantially same cardiac phase as each other, and perform the position alignment between the graphs calculated in substantially the same cardiac phase as each other.
Fukuda teaches the graphs calculated in a substantially same cardiac phase as each other, and perform the position alignment between the graphs calculated in substantially the same cardiac phase as each other (p0052: The cardiac phase kept in correspondence with the ultrasound image 40 is the same as the cardiac phase in which the reference image 30 was taken. In this situation, for example, the position aligning function 181 performs the position aligning process between the ultrasound image 40 in the CT phase and the reference image 30).
Vaillant in view of Aoyama and Fukuda are combinable because they both deal with medical image processing system. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Vaillant in view of Aoyama and Beauchemin with the teaching of Yamamoto for purpose provided a system for capable of suppressing a positional deviation between a blood vessel extracted image and an X-ray image in the vicinity of a device introduced in a blood vessel (p0007).
Claims 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vaillant in view of Aoyama as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of
Wang et al. (US 20200098124).
Regarding claim 13, Vaillant in view of Aoyama does not teach the medical image processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to determine, on a basis of the shape of the graph of the index value related to the blood flow based on the CT image, the target position in a blood vessel rendered in the CT image, and calculate, on a basis of the target position in the blood vessel, an acquisition direction of the angiography image with respect to the blood vessel.
Wang teaches wherein the processing circuitry is configured to determine, on a basis of the shape of the graph of the index value related to the blood flow based on the CT image, the target position in a blood vessel rendered in the CT image, and calculate, on a basis of the target position in the blood vessel, an acquisition direction of the angiography image with respect to the blood vessel (p0034 and fig. 1:which can be a CT image taken along the longitudinal direction of the blood vessel..).
Vaillant in view of Aoyama and Wang are combinable because they both deal with medical image processing system. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Vaillant in view of Aoyama with the teaching of Wang for purpose provide an automated prediction method for the healthy radius of the blood vessel path implemented by a computer (p0007).
Regarding claim 14, Vaillant in view of Aoyama and Wang teaches the medical image processing apparatus according to claim 13, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to determine, in the blood vessel, a plurality of target positions including the target position, and calculate the acquisition direction of the angiography image with respect to each of the plurality of target positions (Wang: p0007: CT image taken along the longitudinal direction of the blood vessel).
The rational applied to the rejection of claim 13 has been incorporated herein.
Allowable Subject Matter
8. Claims 10-12 and 15-17 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Aoyama (US 20220012878) similar system. However, the closest prior art of record, namely Aoyama (US 20220012878), does not disclose, teach or suggest, the claim limitation, as recited in dependent claims 10 and 15.
Claims 11-12 are found to be allowable because claim 11-12 is depending on claim 10.
Claims 16-17 are found to be allowable because claim 16-17 is depending on claim 15.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HELEN Q ZONG whose telephone number is (571)270-1600. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9-6.
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, Merouan, Abderrahim can be reached on (571) 270-5254. 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.
HELEN ZONG
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2683
/HELEN ZONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2683
Prosecution Insights