DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Status of Claims
Applicant’s Amendments files on April 14, 2026 has been entered and made of record.
Currently pending Claim(s):
Amended claim(s):
1-28
1-28
Response to Arguments
This office action is responsive to Applicant’s Arguments/Remarks made in an Amendment received on April 14, 2026.
In view of the new title amendments and applicant arguments, Remarks filed on April 14, 2026, the specification objection has been withdrawn.
In view of the new claim amendments and applicant argument Remarks filed on April 14, 2026 with respect to 35 U.S.C. 112(f) claim interpretation have been carefully considered and the claim interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is withdrawn.
In view of the new claim amendments and applicant arguments, Remarks filed on April 14, 2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 101 claim rejections have been carefully considered and the claims rejections to claims 1-28 under 35 U.S.C. 101 are withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed on April 14, 2026 with respect to rejections of claims under 35 U.S.C. 103 has been carefully considered. In light of Applicant amendment of the independent claims, Applicant's arguments with respect to the rejections of record over prior art, presented in Pages 21-27 of the Remarks, have been persuasive; and therefore, the rejections over prior art have been withdrawn. However, with respect to the amended limitations of "generate a subtraction image based on the deformed image and the other of the first image and the second image", Applicant has not provided any guidelines as to where in the specification Applicant has support. Accordingly, this term introduces "new matter" in the claims. Additionally, with respect to the amended limitation “generate a subtraction image based on”, found at the end of independent claims 1, 18, 26, and 27, it is unclear as to how the “based on” relates to the terms that are being subtracted making the claims indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The amended limitation of claim 1 recites "generate a subtraction image based on the deformed image and the other of the first image and the second image" [Emphasis added]. The Examiner notes at paragraph [0087] the subtracted image is generated “by subtracting the deformed image DI21 and the deformed images DI22 to DI25 from the first medical image”. However nowhere in the description of the present application there appear to be clear and unambiguous support for "generate a subtraction image based on the deformed image and the other of the first image and the second image" [Emphasis added] recited in amended claims 1, 18, 26 and 27. If Applicant believes that the specification fully supports the addition of this limitation, it is suggested that Applicant provide the exact location of recitation of this limitation in the specification. Independent claims 18, 26 and 27 are similarly rejected.
Dependent claims 2-17, 19-25, and 28 are rejected due to their dependencies.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Independent claim 1 at line 24 recite “subtraction image based on…”. The term “based on” is a subjective term (see MPEP 2173.05(b)(IV)). One of ordinary skill in the art may interpret these terms differently. Accordingly, further clarification is required to clearly identify the relationship between the limitations separated by these terms. Independent claims 18, 26 and 27 are similarly rejected.
Dependent claims 2-17, 19-25, and 28 are rejected due to their dependencies.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Miyasa et al. (US 2017/0206670 A1) discloses performing deformation-based alignment between a first image and a second image to obtain a deformation displacement field. And generating a deformed image by deforming one of the images based on the displacement field. However, Miyasa fails to teach performing registration on first bone-region of the first image and first bone-region of the second image and obtaining a displacement field based on that registration.
Hirakawa (US 2020/0058098 A1) discloses acquiring a first image and a second image of a subject including a plurality of bone parts, and performing registration between the corresponding bone parts using rigid or non-rigid alignment based on landmarks. Hirakawa further teaches applying the result of the registration process to the first and second images to generate a difference image between them. However, Hirakawa fails to teach generating deformed images based on a displacement field obtained from image registration.
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 UROOJ FATIMA whose telephone number is (571)272-2096. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:00.
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, Henok Shiferaw can be reached at (571) 272-4637. 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.
/UROOJ FATIMA/Examiner, Art Unit 2676
/Henok Shiferaw/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2676
Prosecution Insights