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 .
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 5-6, 9-12, and 19-20 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. Reasons for allowance will be provided in the event the application becomes in condition for allowance.
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) 1-4 and 13-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cachovan et al. (U.S.P.G. Pub. No. 2019/0168029) in view of Khalil (“2D to 3D fusion of echocardiography and cardiac CT for TAVR and TAVI image guidance”, copy provided, see PTO-892).
Regarding claim 1, Cachovan et al. (U.S.P.G. Pub. No. 2019/0168029) discloses:
A system, comprising:
at least one storage device including a set of instructions; and at least one processor configured to communicate with the at least one storage device, wherein when executing the set of instructions, the at least one processor is configured to direct the system to perform operations (see, for example, paragraph [0065]) including:
obtaining one or more first acquisition time periods related to a scan of a first modality performed on an object (Figure 1, paragraph [0025], tomographic images acquired for a series of timepoints; paragraph [0047], images are acquired using multiple modalities – CT, SPECT, MR);
determining, based on the one or more first acquisition time periods, one or more second acquisition time periods related to a scan of a second modality performed on the object, each of the one or more second acquisition time periods being consistent with each of the one of the one or more first acquisition time periods (Figure 9, paragraphs [0061]-[0064], different time points/periods are shown in the acquisition curve graph);
obtaining, based on the one or more second acquisition time periods, target data of the object acquired in the scan of the second modality (paragraph [0047], images are acquired using multiple modalities – CT, SPECT, MR); and
generating one or more target images of the object based on the target data (paragraphs [0046]-[0047], images are reconstructed)
Even assuming arguendo that Cachovan et al. does not explicitly disclose:
generating one or more target images of the object based on the target data
Khalil (“2D to 3D fusion of echocardiography and cardiac CT for TAVR and TAVI image guidance”, copy provided, see PTO-892) discloses:
obtaining one or more first acquisition time periods related to a scan of a first modality performed on an object (page 1318, CT scanning of cardiac cycle)
obtaining, based on the one or more second acquisition time periods, target data of the object acquired in the scan of the second modality (page 1318, echocardiography time series capture)
generating one or more target images of the object based on the target data (pages 1318-1319, imaging from multiple modalities is registered with each other both temporally and spatially)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the system of Khalil with the system of Cachovan such that the system would have been configured to generating one or more target images of the object based on the target data as described in Khalil. The suggestion/motivation would have been in order to implement a system capable of “improv[ing] diagnosis accuracy” (page 1318 of the Khalil reference).
Regarding claim 2, Cachovan et al. additionally discloses:
wherein the each of the one or more second acquisition time periods being consistent with the each of the one of the one or more first acquisition time periods includes:
a start point of the each of the one or more second acquisition time periods is consistent with a start point of the each of the one or more first acquisition time periods (Figure 1, paragraphs [0020]-[0023], the emissions data and the CT data align at the same initial timepoint), and
an end point of the each of the one or more second acquisition time periods is consistent with an end point of the each of the one or more first acquisition time periods (Figure 1, paragraphs [0020]-[0023], the emissions data and the CT data align at the same end timepoint)
Regarding claim 3, Cachovan et al. additionally discloses:
wherein the operations further comprise: causing the one or more first acquisition time periods or the one or more second acquisition time periods to be displayed (paragraphs [0044], the operator can select particular cycles for the dose/dose uncertainty)
Regarding claim 4, Cachovan et al. additionally discloses:
wherein generating the one or more target images of the object based on the target data includes: obtaining one or more reconstruction parameters associated with the target data (paragraphs [0046]-[0047], based on the information of the tomographic images, reconstruction parameters are derived such as a mu-map or the techniques/algorithms noted); and
generating, based on the target data and the one or more reconstruction parameters, the one or more target images of the object (paragraphs [0046]-[0047], images are reconstructed)
Regarding claim 13, Cachovan et al. additionally discloses:
wherein the second modality is positron emission tomography (PET) or single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT), and the first modality is magnetic resonance (MR) (paragraphs [0021]-[0023], modalities that can be used include PET, SPECT, MR, CT, and others)
Regarding claim 14, Cachovan et al. additionally discloses:
wherein one or more scan sequences are applied in the scan of the first modality (paragraph [0019]-[0021], the process includes multiple cycles in a particular modality, each involving acquisition of images)
Regarding claim 15, Cachovan et al. additionally discloses:
wherein each of the one or more first acquisition time periods corresponds to one of the one or more scan sequences (Figure 1, paragraphs [0019]-[0023], the time periods correspond to the cycles)
Regarding claim 16, Cachovan et al. additionally discloses:
wherein at least a portion of the scan of the first modality is performed synchronously with at least a portion of the scan of the second modality (Figure 1, paragraphs [0019]-[0023], the two modalities are used for each timepoint)
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Cachovan and Khalil discloses the system of the parent claim (claim 1).
Cachovan additionally discloses:
wherein the operations further comprises:
obtaining first modality data acquired in the one or more second acquisition time periods (Figure 1, paragraph [0025], tomographic images acquired for a series of timepoints; paragraph [0047], images are acquired using multiple modalities – CT, SPECT, MR);
generating one or more first modality images of the object based on the first modality data (Figure 1, paragraph [0025], tomographic images acquired for a series of timepoints; paragraph [0047], images are acquired using multiple modalities – CT, SPECT, MR);
Cachovan does not explicitly disclose:
causing the one or more target images and the one or more first modality images to be displayed in fusion.
Khalil discloses:
causing the one or more target images and the one or more first modality images to be displayed in fusion (page 1323, see the fusion of the two different modalities in Figure 6)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the system of Khalil with the system of Cachovan such that the system would have been configured to cause the one or more target images and the one or more first modality images to be displayed in fusion as described in Khalil. The suggestion/motivation would have been in order to implement a system capable of “improv[ing] diagnosis accuracy” (page 1318 of the Khalil reference).
Regarding claim 18, Cachovan et al. (U.S.P.G. Pub. No. 2019/0168029) discloses:
A system, comprising:
at least one storage device including a set of instructions; at least one processor configured to communicate with the at least one storage device and the interactive interface, wherein when executing the set of instructions, the at least one processor is configured to direct the system to perform operations (see, for example, paragraph [0065]) including:
causing an acquisition curve in a coordinate system to be displayed (Figure 9, paragraphs [0061]-[0064], uptake curve shown; process 800 is an implementation of process 200/S225- see paragraphs [0040]-[0044] and [0059]; see claims 1 and 2 of Cachovan);
causing one or more first acquisition time periods to be displayed in the coordinate system (see for example, Figure 9), wherein the one or more first acquisition time periods correspond to one or more sequences performed in a scan of a first modality performed on an object (Figure 1, paragraph [0025], tomographic images acquired for a series of timepoints; paragraph [0047], images are acquired using multiple modalities – CT, SPECT, MR);
determining one or more second acquisition time periods on the acquisition curve based on the one or more first acquisition time periods, each of the one or more second acquisition time periods being consistent with each of the one of the one or more first acquisition time periods (Figure 9, paragraphs [0061]-[0064], different time points/periods are shown in the acquisition curve graph);
Cachovan et al. does not explicitly disclose:
register one or more target images generated based on the one or more second acquisition time periods and one or more second modality images generated based on the one or more first acquisition time periods
Khalil (“2D to 3D fusion of echocardiography and cardiac CT for TAVR and TAVI image guidance”, copy provided, see PTO-892) discloses:
register one or more target images generated based on the one or more second acquisition time periods and one or more second modality images generated based on the one or more first acquisition time periods (pages 1318-1319, imaging from multiple modalities is registered with each other both temporally and spatially)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the system of Khalil with the system of Cachovan such that the system would have been configured to register one or more target images generated based on the one or more second acquisition time periods and one or more second modality images generated based on the one or more first acquisition time period as described in Khalil. The suggestion/motivation would have been in order to implement a system capable of “improv[ing] diagnosis accuracy” (page 1318 of the Khalil reference).
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cachovan et al. in view of Khalil, further in view of Takeshima (U.S.P.G. Pub. No. 2019/0362472).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Cachovan and Khalil discloses the system of the parent claim (claim 4).
The combination of Cachovan and Khalil does not explicitly disclose:
causing the one or more reconstruction parameters to be displayed.
Takeshima (U.S.P.G. Pub. No. 2019/0362472) discloses:
causing the one or more reconstruction parameters to be displayed (paragraph [0086], the user can select whether or not to adjust parameters related to the reconstruction)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the system of Takeshima with the combination of Cachovan and Khalil such that the system would have been configured to cause the one or more reconstruction parameters to be displayed as described in Takeshima. The suggestion/motivation would have been in order to implement a system accommodating a “user [that] may not wish to change…parameters” (paragraph [0086] of the Takeshima reference) by allowing for manual selection of interface options by the user.
Regarding claim 8 the combination of Cachovan and Khalil discloses the system of the parent claim (claim 4).
The combination of Cachovan and Khalil does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the operations further comprises: causing to be displayed at least one of an adding button configured to cause the one or more reconstruction parameters of the target data to be added into a list, a deletion button configured to cause the one or more reconstruction parameters to be deleted from the list, a saving button configured to cause the one or more reconstruction parameters to be saved, an export button configured to cause the one or more reconstruction parameters to be exported, an import button configured to cause the one or more reconstruction parameters to be obtained, or a reconstruction button configured to cause the target data to be reconstructed.
Takeshima discloses:
wherein the operations further comprises: causing to be displayed at least one of an adding button configured to cause the one or more reconstruction parameters of the target data to be added into a list, a deletion button configured to cause the one or more reconstruction parameters to be deleted from the list, a saving button configured to cause the one or more reconstruction parameters to be saved, an export button configured to cause the one or more reconstruction parameters to be exported, an import button configured to cause the one or more reconstruction parameters to be obtained, or a reconstruction button configured to cause the target data to be reconstructed (paragraph [0086], the user can select not using the layer-switching parameters; this constitutes a deletion of the layer-switching parameters with respect to the reconstruction)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the system of Takeshima with the combination of Cachovan and Khalil such that the system would have been configured to include a deletion button configured to cause the one or more reconstruction parameters to be deleted from the list as described in Takeshima. The suggestion/motivation would have been in order to implement a system accommodating a “user [that] may not wish to change…parameters” (paragraph [0086] of the Takeshima reference) by allowing for manual selection of interface options by the user.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN R WALLACE whose telephone number is (571)270-1577. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday from 8:30-5 PM.
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, Benny Tieu can be reached at 571-272-7490. 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.
/JOHN R WALLACE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2682
Prosecution Insights