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 .
Response to Amendment
Claim 5 and 20 has been amended changing the scope and contents of the claim.
Applicant’s amendment filed August 14, 2026 overcomes the following objection/rejection(s) from the last Office Action of May 15, 2026:
Objections to the claims for minor informalities
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed August 14, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1 (and similarly claims 10-11 and 20), applicant argues, “Sugiyama does not disclose or suggest identifying the first and second chest walls "based on a line drawn through a plurality of pixels having pixel values above a threshold," as recited in claim 1 (Remarks, 10).”
The examiner respectfully disagrees. Specifically, the examiner previously relied upon Sugiyama, paragraph 0076, “For example, the first detection unit 248b detects the position of the chest wall by threshold processing based on the distribution of brightness vales of respective voxels contained in the first volume data” and paragraph 0108, “For example, the display control unit 248f displays a line 71 indicating the position of the chest wall detected by the first detection unit 248b on the axial image 62 generated from the first volume data. The display control unit 248f displays a line 72 indicating the position of the chest wall detected by the first detection unit 248b on the sagittal image 63 generated from the first volume data.” Using the detection of the first chest wall as exemplary, the claim states, “identifying a first chest wall in the first mammogram, wherein identifying the first chest wall is based on a line drawn through a plurality of pixels having pixel values above a threshold.” The examiner notes that the chest wall is simply “based on” the line, which under BRI is broad enough to encompass any sort of line generation on the image to depict the chest wall. Further, the “threshold” as claimed under BRI can be any threshold as related to the pixel values since it is not specified.
Based on the above interpretation, the examiner maintains that Sugiyama reads on the identification of the chest wall. The examiner agrees with the applicants statement that Sugiyama uses a histogram to determine the brightness values (these brightness values are from the pixel values), and then this histogram data is used to generate a threshold, and delineate the chest wall. Due to the BRI applied to the limitation, eventhough Sugiyama utilizes a histogram, there is still thresholding being applied to the pixel values (in this case the brightness) which are used to generate a line representing the chest wall line. In order to advance prosecution with respect to the claimed limitation, the examiner recommends clarifying the pixel value threshold.
Further, the examiner notes a phone call was made to Baker Botts LLP to respond to the interview request in the Remarks, however no one was reachable.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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, 6-7 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zheng, Bin, et al. "Multiview‐based computer‐aided detection scheme for breast masses." Medical physics 33.9 (2006): 3135-3143 (hereinafter Zheng) and further in view of U.S. Publication No. 2015/0221091 to Sugiyama et al. (hereinafter Sugiyama).
Regarding independent claim 1, Zheng discloses A method for marking a region of interest in a mammogram (abstract, “In this study, we developed and tested a new multiview-based computer-aided detection CAD scheme that aims to maintain the same case-based sensitivity level as a single-image-based scheme while substantially increasing the number of masses being detected on both ipsilateral views;” Figure 1(a) and 1(b)), comprising:
receiving a first mammogram of a patient, the first mammogram comprising a first nipple tip and being a first projection (page 3137, Figure 1, “FIG. 1. Demonstration of the identification of a matching area of interest on ipsilateral image. (a) A mass region (circled *) with detection score larger than the CAD operating threshold and a centerline are cued on the CC view;” the CC view is read as the first mammogram as seen in A, the nipple is present, and is a projection itself);
identifying a first posterior nipple line in the first mammogram (page 3137, Figure 1, “FIG. 1. Demonstration of the identification of a matching area of interest on ipsilateral image. (a) A mass region (circled *) with detection score larger than the CAD operating threshold and a centerline are cued on the CC view;”), wherein the first posterior nipple line extends between the first nipple tip and perpendicular to the first chest wall (page 3137, figure 1, “FIG. 1. Demonstration of the identification of a matching area of interest on ipsilateral image. (a) A mass region (circled *) with detection score larger than the CAD operating threshold and a centerline are cued on the CC view. (b) A matching strip between two parallel lines, a centerline, chest wall, and a mass region with detection score smaller than CAD operating threshold (*) are cued on the MLO view;” page 3137, right column, “To find matched areas of interest, we compute the distance between the nipple and each CAD-cued mass region with a detection score >= 0.55 projected onto the centerline (a line through the nipple that is perpendicular to the chest wall.”));
identifying a region of interest in the first mammogram (page 3137, Figure 1, “FIG. 1. Demonstration of the identification of a matching area of interest on ipsilateral image. (a) A mass region (circled *) with detection score larger than the CAD operating threshold and a centerline are cued on the CC view;” the ROI is read as the mass region);
identifying a reference line in the first mammogram, the reference line being perpendicular to the first posterior nipple line and extending from the first posterior nipple line through the region of interest (page 3137, right column, “To find matched areas of interest, we compute the distance between the nipple and each CAD-cued mass region with a detection score >=0.55 projected onto the centerline (a line through the nipple that is perpendicular to the chest wall).”);
calculating a distance, d, the distance d extending from the first nipple tip to the reference line along the first posterior nipple line (page 3137, right column, “To find matched areas of interest, we compute the distance between the nipple and each CAD-cued mass region with a detection score >=0.55 projected onto the centerline (a line through the nipple that is perpendicular to the chest wall).”);
receiving a second mammogram of the patient, the second mammogram comprising a second nipple tip and being a second projection (page 3137, figure 1, “FIG. 1. Demonstration of the identification of a matching area of interest on ipsilateral image… (b) A matching strip between two parallel lines, a centerline, chest wall, and a mass region with detection score smaller than CAD operating threshold (*) are cued on the MLO view;” MLO view is read as the second mammogram also containing a nipple tip and is projection data);
identifying a second posterior nipple line in the second mammogram (page 3137, figure 1, “FIG. 1. Demonstration of the identification of a matching area of interest on ipsilateral image… (b) A matching strip between two parallel lines, a centerline, chest wall, and a mass region with detection score smaller than CAD operating threshold (*) are cued on the MLO view;” MLO view is read as the second mammogram also containing a nipple tip and is projection data), and wherein the second posterior nipple line extends through the second nipple tip and is perpendicular to the second chest wall (page 3137, figure 1, “FIG. 1. Demonstration of the identification of a matching area of interest on ipsilateral image. (a) A mass region (circled *) with detection score larger than the CAD operating threshold and a centerline are cued on the CC view. (b) A matching strip between two parallel lines, a centerline, chest wall, and a mass region with detection score smaller than CAD operating threshold (*) are cued on the MLO view;” page 3137, right column, “To find matched areas of interest, we compute the distance between the nipple and each CAD-cued mass region with a detection score >= 0.55 projected onto the centerline (a line through the nipple that is perpendicular to the chest wall.”)); and
providing, on the second mammogram, a region-of-interest marker, the region-of-interest marker extending perpendicular from the second posterior nipple line the distance d from the second nipple tip along the second posterior nipple line (page 3137, figure 1, “FIG. 1. Demonstration of the identification of a matching area of interest on ipsilateral image… (b) A matching strip between two parallel lines, a centerline, chest wall, and a mass region with detection score smaller than CAD operating threshold (*) are cued on the MLO view;” page 3137, right column, “To find matched areas of interest, we compute the distance between the nipple and each CAD-cued mass region with a detection score >=0.55 projected onto the centerline (a line through the nipple that is perpendicular to the chest wall). Applying the same projected distance to the corresponding ipsilateral image, the scheme defines a “matching strip” of interest.”).
Zheng fails to explicitly disclose as further recited. However, Sugiyama discloses
identifying a first chest wall in the first mammogram, wherein identifying the first chest wall is based on a line drawn through a plurality of pixels having pixel values above a threshold (paragraph 0076, “For example, the first detection unit 248b detects the position of the chest wall by threshold processing based on the distribution of brightness vales of respective voxels contained in the first volume data.;” paragraph 0108, “For example, the display control unit 248f displays a line 71 indicating the position of the chest wall detected by the first detection unit 248b on the axial image 62 generated from the first volume data. The display control unit 248f displays a line 72 indicating the position of the chest wall detected by the first detection unit 248b on the sagittal image 63 generated from the first volume data.”);
identifying a second chest wall in the second mammogram, wherein the second chest wall is identified based on a lien drawn through a plurality of pixel values above a threshold (paragraph 0076, “For example, the first detection unit 248b detects the position of the chest wall by threshold processing based on the distribution of brightness vales of respective voxels contained in the first volume data.;” paragraph 0108, “For example, the display control unit 248f displays a line 71 indicating the position of the chest wall detected by the first detection unit 248b on the axial image 62 generated from the first volume data. The display control unit 248f displays a line 72 indicating the position of the chest wall detected by the first detection unit 248b on the sagittal image 63 generated from the first volume data.”).
Zheng is directed toward “In this study, we developed and tested a new multiview-based computer-aided detection (CAD) scheme that aims to maintain the same case-based sensitivity level as a single-image-based scheme while substantially increasing the number of masses being detected on both ipsilateral views (abstract).” Sugiyama is directed toward “A medical image processing apparatus according to an embodiment includes a detection unit, a generating unit, and an associating unit. The detection unit analyzes a first piece and a second piece of image data of a breast, and detects the positions of a chest wall and a nipple in each of the pieces of image data, (abstract).” One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention can easily see Zheng and Sugiyama are directed toward similar methods of endeavor of mammogram image analysis. Further, it is well known in the art that image segmentation methods are used to segment images based on pixel values; different pixel values can represent different tissue types. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teaching of Sugiyama in order to ensure the image is segmented accurately based on pixel values present, so that a reviewer can more clearly view delineations of tissues for analysis and diagnosis.
Regarding dependent claim 6, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein. Additionally, Zheng in the combination further discloses wherein the first projection comprises a craniocaudal view (page 3137, figure 1, “FIG. 1. Demonstration of the identification of a matching area of interest on ipsilateral image. (a) A mass region (circled *) with detection score larger than the CAD operating threshold and a centerline are cued on the CC view. (b) A matching strip between two parallel lines, a centerline, chest wall, and a mass region with detection score smaller than CAD operating threshold (*) are cued on the MLO view”).
Regarding dependent claim 7, the rejection of claim 6 is incorporated herein. Additionally, Zheng in the combination further discloses wherein the second projection comprises a mediolateral oblique view (page 3137, figure 1, “FIG. 1. Demonstration of the identification of a matching area of interest on ipsilateral image. (a) A mass region (circled *) with detection score larger than the CAD operating threshold and a centerline are cued on the CC view. (b) A matching strip between two parallel lines, a centerline, chest wall, and a mass region with detection score smaller than CAD operating threshold (*) are cued on the MLO view”).
Regarding dependent claim 10, the rejection of claim 1 applies directly. Additionally, Zheng in the combination further discloses A system (abstract, “In this study, we developed and tested a new multiview-based computer-aided detection CAD scheme;” the computer is read as part of the system) comprising:
one or more processors (abstract, “In this study, we developed and tested a new multiview-based computer-aided detection CAD scheme;” computer-aided is read as utilizing a processor); and
a non-transitory memory coupled to the processors comprising instructions executable by the processors, the processors being operable when executing the instructions (abstract, “In this study, we developed and tested a new multiview-based computer-aided detection CAD scheme;” in order to initiate a computer aided scheme, there must be a program operating on the computer system) to:
receive a first mammogram of a patient, the first mammogram comprising a first nipple tip and being a first projection (page 3137, Figure 1, “FIG. 1. Demonstration of the identification of a matching area of interest on ipsilateral image. (a) A mass region (circled *) with detection score larger than the CAD operating threshold and a centerline are cued on the CC view;” the CC view is read as the first mammogram as seen in A, the nipple is present, and is a projection itself);
identify a first posterior nipple line in the first mammogram (page 3137, Figure 1, “FIG. 1. Demonstration of the identification of a matching area of interest on ipsilateral image. (a) A mass region (circled *) with detection score larger than the CAD operating threshold and a centerline are cued on the CC view;”), wherein the first posterior nipple line extends through the first nipple tip and is perpendicular to the first chest wall (page 3137, figure 1, “FIG. 1. Demonstration of the identification of a matching area of interest on ipsilateral image. (a) A mass region (circled *) with detection score larger than the CAD operating threshold and a centerline are cued on the CC view. (b) A matching strip between two parallel lines, a centerline, chest wall, and a mass region with detection score smaller than CAD operating threshold (*) are cued on the MLO view;” page 3137, right column, “To find matched areas of interest, we compute the distance between the nipple and each CAD-cued mass region with a detection score >= 0.55 projected onto the centerline (a line through the nipple that is perpendicular to the chest wall.”));
identify a region of interest in the first mammogram (page 3137, Figure 1, “FIG. 1. Demonstration of the identification of a matching area of interest on ipsilateral image. (a) A mass region (circled *) with detection score larger than the CAD operating threshold and a centerline are cued on the CC view;” the ROI is read as the mass region);
identify a reference line in the first mammogram, the reference line being perpendicular to the first posterior nipple line and extending from the first posterior nipple line through the region of interest (page 3137, right column, “To find matched areas of interest, we compute the distance between the nipple and each CAD-cued mass region with a detection score >=0.55 projected onto the centerline (a line through the nipple that is perpendicular to the chest wall).”);
calculate a distance, d, the distance d extending from the first nipple tip to the reference line along the first posterior nipple line (page 3137, right column, “To find matched areas of interest, we compute the distance between the nipple and each CAD-cued mass region with a detection score >=0.55 projected onto the centerline (a line through the nipple that is perpendicular to the chest wall).”);
receive a second mammogram of the patient, the second mammogram comprising a second nipple tip and being a second projection (page 3137, figure 1, “FIG. 1. Demonstration of the identification of a matching area of interest on ipsilateral image… (b) A matching strip between two parallel lines, a centerline, chest wall, and a mass region with detection score smaller than CAD operating threshold (*) are cued on the MLO view;” MLO view is read as the second mammogram also containing a nipple tip and is projection data);
identify a second posterior nipple line in the second mammogram (page 3137, figure 1, “FIG. 1. Demonstration of the identification of a matching area of interest on ipsilateral image… (b) A matching strip between two parallel lines, a centerline, chest wall, and a mass region with detection score smaller than CAD operating threshold (*) are cued on the MLO view;” MLO view is read as the second mammogram also containing a nipple tip and is projection data), wherein the second posterior nipple line extends through the second nipple tip and is perpendicular to the second chest wall (page 3137, figure 1, “FIG. 1. Demonstration of the identification of a matching area of interest on ipsilateral image. (a) A mass region (circled *) with detection score larger than the CAD operating threshold and a centerline are cued on the CC view. (b) A matching strip between two parallel lines, a centerline, chest wall, and a mass region with detection score smaller than CAD operating threshold (*) are cued on the MLO view;” page 3137, right column, “To find matched areas of interest, we compute the distance between the nipple and each CAD-cued mass region with a detection score >= 0.55 projected onto the centerline (a line through the nipple that is perpendicular to the chest wall.”)); and
provide, on the second mammogram, a region-of-interest marker, the region-of-interest marker extending perpendicular from the second posterior nipple line the distance d from the second nipple tip along the second posterior nipple line (page 3137, figure 1, “FIG. 1. Demonstration of the identification of a matching area of interest on ipsilateral image… (b) A matching strip between two parallel lines, a centerline, chest wall, and a mass region with detection score smaller than CAD operating threshold (*) are cued on the MLO view;” page 3137, right column, “To find matched areas of interest, we compute the distance between the nipple and each CAD-cued mass region with a detection score >=0.55 projected onto the centerline (a line through the nipple that is perpendicular to the chest wall). Applying the same projected distance to the corresponding ipsilateral image, the scheme defines a “matching strip” of interest.”).
Zheng fails to explicitly disclose as further recited. However, Sugiyama discloses identify a first chest wall in the first mammogram, wherein the first chest wall is identified based on a line drawn through a plurality of pixels having pixel values above a threshold (paragraph 0076, “For example, the first detection unit 248b detects the position of the chest wall by threshold processing based on the distribution of brightness vales of respective voxels contained in the first volume data.;” paragraph 0108, “For example, the display control unit 248f displays a line 71 indicating the position of the chest wall detected by the first detection unit 248b on the axial image 62 generated from the first volume data. The display control unit 248f displays a line 72 indicating the position of the chest wall detected by the first detection unit 248b on the sagittal image 63 generated from the first volume data.”);
Identifying a second chest wall in the second mammogram, wherein the second chest wall is identified based on a line drawn through a plurality of pixels having pixel values above a threshold (paragraph 0076, “For example, the first detection unit 248b detects the position of the chest wall by threshold processing based on the distribution of brightness vales of respective voxels contained in the first volume data.;” paragraph 0108, “For example, the display control unit 248f displays a line 71 indicating the position of the chest wall detected by the first detection unit 248b on the axial image 62 generated from the first volume data. The display control unit 248f displays a line 72 indicating the position of the chest wall detected by the first detection unit 248b on the sagittal image 63 generated from the first volume data.”).
Zheng is directed toward “In this study, we developed and tested a new multiview-based computer-aided detection (CAD) scheme that aims to maintain the same case-based sensitivity level as a single-image-based scheme while substantially increasing the number of masses being detected on both ipsilateral views (abstract).” Sugiyama is directed toward “A medical image processing apparatus according to an embodiment includes a detection unit, a generating unit, and an associating unit. The detection unit analyzes a first piece and a second piece of image data of a breast, and detects the positions of a chest wall and a nipple in each of the pieces of image data, (abstract).” One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention can easily see Zheng and Sugiyama are directed toward similar methods of endeavor of mammogram image analysis. Further, it is well known in the art that image segmentation methods are used to segment images based on pixel values; different pixel values can represent different tissue types. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teaching of Sugiyama in order to ensure the image is segmented accurately based on pixel values present, so that a reviewer can more clearly view delineations of tissues for analysis and diagnosis.
Claim(s) 11, 13 and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brandt, Sami S., et al. "An anatomically oriented breast coordinate system for mammogram analysis." IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging 30.10 (2011): 1841-1851 (hereinafter Brandt), and further in view of Sugiyama.
Regarding independent claim 11, Brandt discloses A method for registering two mammogram images (abstract, “We have developed a breast coordinate system that is based on breast anatomy to register female breasts to a common coordinate frame in 2D mediolateral (ML) and mediolateral oblique (MLO) view mammograms.”), comprising:
receiving a first mammogram of a patient, the first mammogram comprising a first nipple tip having a first vertical coordinate and a first horizontal coordinate (abstract, “We have developed a breast coordinate system that is based on breast anatomy to register female breasts to a common coordinate frame in 2D mediolateral (ML) and mediolateral oblique (MLO) view mammograms;” page 4, “We start with the fact that there are three anatomical features in the breast, the nipple, the breast boundary, and the pectoral muscle, that can be robustly found in each 2D mammogram. We therefore use these features as the geometric reference features (see Fig. 1): we identify the nipple as the 2D point A, approximate the border of the pectoral line and the breast tissue as the pectoral line BC, and the breast boundary as a curve containing the point A. Since only the nipple is identified as a single 2D point in a mammogram and it has a clear anatomical and geometric meaning, it is selected as the origin of our coordinate system;” See also Figure 1 on page 5);
identifying a first posterior nipple line in the first mammogram, the first posterior nipple line having a first angle (page 4, “We start with the fact that there are three anatomical features in the breast, the nipple, the breast boundary, and the pectoral muscle, that can be robustly found in each 2D mammogram. We therefore use these features as the geometric reference features (see Fig. 1): we identify the nipple as the 2D point A, approximate the border of the pectoral line and the breast tissue as the pectoral line BC, and the breast boundary as a curve containing the point A. Since only the nipple is identified as a single 2D point in a mammogram and it has a clear anatomical and geometric meaning, it is selected as the origin of our coordinate system;” See also Figure 1 on page 5; lines inherently have angles), and wherein the first posterior nipple line extends through the first nipple tip and is perpendicular to the first chest wall (Figure 3, line l);
receiving a second mammogram of the patient, the second mammogram comprising a second nipple tip having a second vertical coordinate and a second horizontal coordinate (abstract, “We have developed a breast coordinate system that is based on breast anatomy to register female breasts to a common coordinate frame in 2D mediolateral (ML) and mediolateral oblique (MLO) view mammograms;” page 4, “We start with the fact that there are three anatomical features in the breast, the nipple, the breast boundary, and the pectoral muscle, that can be robustly found in each 2D mammogram. We therefore use these features as the geometric reference features (see Fig. 1): we identify the nipple as the 2D point A, approximate the border of the pectoral line and the breast tissue as the pectoral line BC, and the breast boundary as a curve containing the point A. Since only the nipple is identified as a single 2D point in a mammogram and it has a clear anatomical and geometric meaning, it is selected as the origin of our coordinate system;” See also Figure 1 on page 5 and Figure 4 on page 14);
identifying a second posterior nipple line in the second mammogram, the second posterior nipple line having a second angle (page 4, “We start with the fact that there are three anatomical features in the breast, the nipple, the breast boundary, and the pectoral muscle, that can be robustly found in each 2D mammogram. We therefore use these features as the geometric reference features (see Fig. 1): we identify the nipple as the 2D point A, approximate the border of the pectoral line and the breast tissue as the pectoral line BC, and the breast boundary as a curve containing the point A. Since only the nipple is identified as a single 2D point in a mammogram and it has a clear anatomical and geometric meaning, it is selected as the origin of our coordinate system;” See also Figure 1 on page 5; lines inherently have angles), and wherein the second posterior nipple line extends through the second nipple tip and is perpendicular to the second chest wall (Figure 3, line l);
shifting the second mammogram vertically by a first difference between the second vertical coordinate and the first vertical coordinate (abstract, “The breasts are registered according to the location of the pectoral muscle and the nipple, and the shape of the breast boundary, since they are most robust features that can be found independent of the breast size and shape” page 9, “To make aligned feature extraction between different mammograms of different people, we thus match the positions and orientations using the breast coordinates but do not alter the local scale;” aligning a feature requires shifting by the difference between the two; page 12, “In the similarity registered system, the nipple is likewise set to the origin. In addition, the the mammogram is rotated so that the pectoral line becomes a vertical line (see Fig. 3);” page 6, “To summarise, the breast parameters or the distinct points A, B, C, and the tangent direction angle φ0 encode the shape of the breast. Given the breast parameters, there is a one-to-one mapping between the breast coordinate pair (s, φ) and the image coordinates (x, y) within the area defined by the parabolic boundary approximation and the pectoral line. The details of the numerical computation of this mapping and its inverse will be considered in the following section.”);
shifting the second mammogram horizontally by a second difference between the second horizontal coordinate and the first horizontal coordinate (abstract, “The breasts are registered according to the location of the pectoral muscle and the nipple, and the shape of the breast boundary, since they are most robust features that can be found independent of the breast size and shape” page 9, “To make aligned feature extraction between different mammograms of different people, we thus match the positions and orientations using the breast coordinates but do not alter the local scale;” aligning a feature requires shifting by the difference between the two; page 12, “In the similarity registered system, the nipple is likewise set to the origin. In addition, the the mammogram is rotated so that the pectoral line becomes a vertical line (see Fig. 3);” page 6, “To summarise, the breast parameters or the distinct points A, B, C, and the tangent direction angle φ0 encode the shape of the breast. Given the breast parameters, there is a one-to-one mapping between the breast coordinate pair (s, φ) and the image coordinates (x, y) within the area defined by the parabolic boundary approximation and the pectoral line. The details of the numerical computation of this mapping and its inverse will be considered in the following section.”); and
rotating the second mammogram by a third difference between the second angle and the first angle (page 12, “In the similarity registered system, the nipple is likewise set to the origin. In addition, the the mammogram is rotated so that the pectoral line becomes a vertical line (see Fig. 3);” making both the pectoral lines vertical requires rotation to differences between the two (i.e. the lines now have no difference, and both are vertical); page 6, “To summarise, the breast parameters or the distinct points A, B, C, and the tangent direction angle φ0 encode the shape of the breast. Given the breast parameters, there is a one-to-one mapping between the breast coordinate pair (s, φ) and the image coordinates (x, y) within the area defined by the parabolic boundary approximation and the pectoral line. The details of the numerical computation of this mapping and its inverse will be considered in the following section.”).
Brandt fails to explicitly disclose as further recited. However, Sugiyama discloses identifying a first chest wall in the first mammogram, wherein the first chest wall is identified based on pixel values (paragraph 0076, “For example, the first detection unit 248b detects the position of the chest wall by threshold processing based on the distribution of brightness vales of respective voxels contained in the first volume data.;” paragraph 0108, “For example, the display control unit 248f displays a line 71 indicating the position of the chest wall detected by the first detection unit 248b on the axial image 62 generated from the first volume data. The display control unit 248f displays a line 72 indicating the position of the chest wall detected by the first detection unit 248b on the sagittal image 63 generated from the first volume data.”);
identifying a second chest wall in the second mammogram, wherein the second chest wall is identified based on pixel values (paragraph 0076, “For example, the first detection unit 248b detects the position of the chest wall by threshold processing based on the distribution of brightness vales of respective voxels contained in the first volume data.;” paragraph 0108, “For example, the display control unit 248f displays a line 71 indicating the position of the chest wall detected by the first detection unit 248b on the axial image 62 generated from the first volume data. The display control unit 248f displays a line 72 indicating the position of the chest wall detected by the first detection unit 248b on the sagittal image 63 generated from the first volume data.”).
Brandt is directed toward “We have developed a breast coordinate system that is based on breast anatomy to register female breasts into a common coordinate frame in 2-D mediolateral (ML) or mediolateral oblique (MLO) view mammograms (abstract).” Sugiyama is directed toward “A medical image processing apparatus according to an embodiment includes a detection unit, a generating unit, and an associating unit. The detection unit analyzes a first piece and a second piece of image data of a breast, and detects the positions of a chest wall and a nipple in each of the pieces of image data, (abstract).” As can be easily seen by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, Brandt and Sugiyama are directed toward similar methods of endeavor of mammogram analysis. Further, it is well known in the art that image segmentation methods are used to segment images based on pixel values; different pixel values can represent different tissue types. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teaching of Sugiyama in order to ensure the image is segmented accurately based on pixel values present, allowing a user to clearly view delineations of tissue for diagnosis.
Regarding dependent claim 13, the rejection of claim 11 is incorporated herein. Additionally, Brandt in the combination further discloses further comprising receiving a user input identifying the first chest wall (page 3, “the starting point for our work is that the line approximating the pectoral muscle, the nipple location, and breast boundary approximation are known or given manually;” page 10, “First the boundary parabolae were computed by four manually picked points: the nipple A, a point on the upper and lower part of the breast boundary, respectively, and one more point in the breast in the normal direction from the nipple”).
Regarding dependent claim 15, the rejection of claim 11 is incorporated herein. Additionally, Brandt in the combination further discloses further comprising receiving a user input identifying the second chest wall (page 3, “the starting point for our work is that the line approximating the pectoral muscle, the nipple location, and breast boundary approximation are known or given manually;” page 10, “First the boundary parabolae were computed by four manually picked points: the nipple A, a point on the upper and lower part of the breast boundary, respectively, and one more point in the breast in the normal direction from the nipple”).
Regarding dependent claim 16, the rejection of claim 11 is incorporated herein. Additionally, Brandt in the combination further discloses wherein the first mammogram comprises a craniocaudal view (page 21, “In principle, the breast coordinate transform could be additionally extended to cranialcaudal (CC) views.”) and the second mammogram comprising a craniocaudal view (page 21, “In principle, the breast coordinate transform could be additionally extended to cranialcaudal (CC) views.”).
Regarding dependent claim 17, the rejection of claim 11 is incorporated herein. Additionally, Brandt in the combination further discloses wherein the first mammogram comprising a mediolateral oblique view and the second mammogram comprises a mediolateral oblique view (abstract, “We have developed a breast coordinate system that is based on breast anatomy to register female breasts to a common coordinate frame in 2D mediolateral (ML) and mediolateral oblique (MLO) view mammograms.”).
Regarding dependent claim 18, the rejection of claim 11 is incorporated herein. Additionally, Brandt in the combination further discloses further comprising receiving a user input indicating a location of the first nipple tip (page 3, “the starting point for our work is that the line approximating the pectoral muscle, the nipple location, and breast boundary approximation are known or given manually;” page 10, “First the boundary parabolae were computed by four manually picked points: the nipple A, a point on the upper and lower part of the breast boundary, respectively, and one more point in the breast in the normal direction from the nipple;”).
Regarding dependent claim 19, the rejection of claim 11 is incorporated herein. Additionally, Brandt in the combination further discloses further comprising receiving a user input indicating a location of the second nipple tip (page 3, “the starting point for our work is that the line approximating the pectoral muscle, the nipple location, and breast boundary approximation are known or given manually;” page 10, “First the boundary parabolae were computed by four manually picked points: the nipple A, a point on the upper and lower part of the breast boundary, respectively, and one more point in the breast in the normal direction from the nipple;”).
Regarding independent claim 20, the rejection of claim 11 applies directly. Additionally, Brant in the combination further discloses A system (abstract, “We have developed a breast coordinate system that is based on breast anatomy to register female breasts to a common coordinate frame in 2D mediolateral (ML) and mediolateral oblique (MLO) view mammograms;” page 19, “We have presented an anatomical breast coordinate transform to facilitate computerised analysis of mammograms”) comprising:
one or more processors (page 19, “We have presented an anatomical breast coordinate transform to facilitate computerised analysis of mammograms”); and
a non-transitory memory coupled to the processors comprising instructions executable by the processors, the processors being operable when executing the instructions (page 19, “We have presented an anatomical breast coordinate transform to facilitate computerised analysis of mammograms;” in order to use computerized analysis, there must be a program run to perform the analysis itself) to:
receive a first mammogram of a patient, the first mammogram comprising a first nipple tip having a first vertical coordinate and a first horizontal coordinate (abstract, “We have developed a breast coordinate system that is based on breast anatomy to register female breasts to a common coordinate frame in 2D mediolateral (ML) and mediolateral oblique (MLO) view mammograms;” page 4, “We start with the fact that there are three anatomical features in the breast, the nipple, the breast boundary, and the pectoral muscle, that can be robustly found in each 2D mammogram. We therefore use these features as the geometric reference features (see Fig. 1): we identify the nipple as the 2D point A, approximate the border of the pectoral line and the breast tissue as the pectoral line BC, and the breast boundary as a curve containing the point A. Since only the nipple is identified as a single 2D point in a mammogram and it has a clear anatomical and geometric meaning, it is selected as the origin of our coordinate system;” See also Figure 1 on page 5);
identify a first posterior nipple line in the first mammogram, the first posterior nipple line having a first angle (page 4, “We start with the fact that there are three anatomical features in the breast, the nipple, the breast boundary, and the pectoral muscle, that can be robustly found in each 2D mammogram. We therefore use these features as the geometric reference features (see Fig. 1): we identify the nipple as the 2D point A, approximate the border of the pectoral line and the breast tissue as the pectoral line BC, and the breast boundary as a curve containing the point A. Since only the nipple is identified as a single 2D point in a mammogram and it has a clear anatomical and geometric meaning, it is selected as the origin of our coordinate system;” See also Figure 1 on page 5; lines inherently have angles), and wherein the first posterior nipple line extends through the first nipple tip and is perpendicular to the first chest wall (Figure 3, line l);
receive a second mammogram of the patient, the second mammogram comprising a second nipple tip having a second vertical coordinate and a second horizontal coordinate (abstract, “We have developed a breast coordinate system that is based on breast anatomy to register female breasts to a common coordinate frame in 2D mediolateral (ML) and mediolateral oblique (MLO) view mammograms;” page 4, “We start with the fact that there are three anatomical features in the breast, the nipple, the breast boundary, and the pectoral muscle, that can be robustly found in each 2D mammogram. We therefore use these features as the geometric reference features (see Fig. 1): we identify the nipple as the 2D point A, approximate the border of the pectoral line and the breast tissue as the pectoral line BC, and the breast boundary as a curve containing the point A. Since only the nipple is identified as a single 2D point in a mammogram and it has a clear anatomical and geometric meaning, it is selected as the origin of our coordinate system;” See also Figure 1 on page 5 and Figure 4 on page 14);
identify a second posterior nipple line in the second mammogram, the second posterior nipple line having a second angle (page 4, “We start with the fact that there are three anatomical features in the breast, the nipple, the breast boundary, and the pectoral muscle, that can be robustly found in each 2D mammogram. We therefore use these features as the geometric reference features (see Fig. 1): we identify the nipple as the 2D point A, approximate the border of the pectoral line and the breast tissue as the pectoral line BC, and the breast boundary as a curve containing the point A. Since only the nipple is identified as a single 2D point in a mammogram and it has a clear anatomical and geometric meaning, it is selected as the origin of our coordinate system;” See also Figure 1 on page 5; lines inherently have angles), and wherein the second posterior nipple line extends through the second nipple tip and is perpendicular to the second chest wall (Figure 3, line l);
shift the second mammogram vertically by a first difference between the second vertical coordinate and the first vertical coordinate (abstract, “The breasts are registered according to the location of the pectoral muscle and the nipple, and the shape of the breast boundary, since they are most robust features that can be found independent of the breast size and shape” page 9, “To make aligned feature extraction between different mammograms of different people, we thus match the positions and orientations using the breast coordinates but do not alter the local scale;” aligning a feature requires shifting by the difference between the two; page 12, “In the similarity registered system, the nipple is likewise set to the origin. In addition, the the mammogram is rotated so that the pectoral line becomes a vertical line (see Fig. 3);” page 6, “To summarise, the breast parameters or the distinct points A, B, C, and the tangent direction angle φ0 encode the shape of the breast. Given the breast parameters, there is a one-to-one mapping between the breast coordinate pair (s, φ) and the image coordinates (x, y) within the area defined by the parabolic boundary approximation and the pectoral line. The details of the numerical computation of this mapping and its inverse will be considered in the following section.”);
shift the second mammogram horizontally by a first difference between the second horizontal coordinate and the first horizontal coordinate (s abstract, “The breasts are registered according to the location of the pectoral muscle and the nipple, and the shape of the breast boundary, since they are most robust features that can be found independent of the breast size and shape” page 9, “To make aligned feature extraction between different mammograms of different people, we thus match the positions and orientations using the breast coordinates but do not alter the local scale;” aligning a feature requires shifting by the difference between the two; page 12, “In the similarity registered system, the nipple is likewise set to the origin. In addition, the the mammogram is rotated so that the pectoral line becomes a vertical line (see Fig. 3);” page 6, “To summarise, the breast parameters or the distinct points A, B, C, and the tangent direction angle φ0 encode the shape of the breast. Given the breast parameters, there is a one-to-one mapping between the breast coordinate pair (s, φ) and the image coordinates (x, y) within the area defined by the parabolic boundary approximation and the pectoral line. The details of the numerical computation of this mapping and its inverse will be considered in the following section.”); and
rotate the second mammogram by a first difference between the second angle and the first angle (page 12, “In the similarity registered system, the nipple is likewise set to the origin. In addition, the the mammogram is rotated so that the pectoral line becomes a vertical line (see Fig. 3);” making both the pectoral lines vertical requires rotation to differences between the two (i.e. the lines now have no difference, and both are vertical); page 6, “To summarise, the breast parameters or the distinct points A, B, C, and the tangent direction angle φ0 encode the shape of the breast. Given the breast parameters, there is a one-to-one mapping between the breast coordinate pair (s, φ) and the image coordinates (x, y) within the area defined by the parabolic boundary approximation and the pectoral line. The details of the numerical computation of this mapping and its inverse will be considered in the following section.”).
Brandt fails to explicitly disclose as further recited. However, Sugiyama discloses identify a first chest wall in the first mammogram, wherein the first chest wall is identified based on pixel values (paragraph 0076, “For example, the first detection unit 248b detects the position of the chest wall by threshold processing based on the distribution of brightness vales of respective voxels contained in the first volume data.;” paragraph 0108, “For example, the display control unit 248f displays a line 71 indicating the position of the chest wall detected by the first detection unit 248b on the axial image 62 generated from the first volume data. The display control unit 248f displays a line 72 indicating the position of the chest wall detected by the first detection unit 248b on the sagittal image 63 generated from the first volume data.”);
identify a second chest wall in the first mammogram, wherein the second chest wall is identified based on pixel values (paragraph 0076, “For example, the first detection unit 248b detects the position of the chest wall by threshold processing based on the distribution of brightness vales of respective voxels contained in the first volume data.;” paragraph 0108, “For example, the display control unit 248f displays a line 71 indicating the position of the chest wall detected by the first detection unit 248b on the axial image 62 generated from the first volume data. The display control unit 248f displays a line 72 indicating the position of the chest wall detected by the first detection unit 248b on the sagittal image 63 generated from the first volume data.”).
Brandt is directed toward “We have developed a breast coordinate system that is based on breast anatomy to register female breasts into a common coordinate frame in 2-D mediolateral (ML) or mediolateral oblique (MLO) view mammograms (abstract).” Sugiyama is directed toward “A medical image processing apparatus according to an embodiment includes a detection unit, a generating unit, and an associating unit. The detection unit analyzes a first piece and a second piece of image data of a breast, and detects the positions of a chest wall and a nipple in each of the pieces of image data, (abstract).” As can be easily seen by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, Brandt and Sugiyama are directed toward similar methods of endeavor of mammogram analysis. Further, it is well known in the art that image segmentation methods are used to segment images based on pixel values; different pixel values can represent different tissue types. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teaching of Sugiyama in order to ensure the image is segmented accurately based on pixel values present, allowing a user to clearly view delineations of tissue for diagnosis.
Claim(s) 3, 5 and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zheng further in view of Sugiyama as applied to claim 1 respectively above, and further in view of Brandt.
Regarding dependent claim 3, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein. Additionally, Zheng and Sugiyama fail to explicitly disclose further comprising receiving a user input identifying the first chest wall.
However, Brandt discloses further comprising receiving a user input identifying the first chest wall (page 3, “the starting point for our work is that the line approximating the pectoral muscle, the nipple location, and breast boundary approximation are known or given manually;” page 10, “First the boundary parabolae were computed by four manually picked points: the nipple A, a point on the upper and lower part of the breast boundary, respectively, and one more point in the breast in the normal direction from the nipple;” the breast boundary is read as the chest wall).
As noted above, Zheng and Sugiyama are directed toward methods of mammogram image analysis. Further, Zheng is directed toward, “In this study, we developed and tested a new multiview-based computer-aided detection CAD scheme that aims to maintain the same case-based sensitivity level as a single-image-based scheme while substantially increasing the number of masses being detected on both ipsilateral views (abstract)” in breast images. Brandt is directed toward, “We have developed a breast coordinate system that is based on breast anatomy to register female breasts to a common coordinate frame in 2D mediolateral (ML) and mediolateral oblique (MLO) view mammograms (abstract).” As can be easily seen by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the claimed invention, Zhen, Sugiyama and Brandt are directed toward similar methods of endeavor of processing multiple images of the breasts. Further, Brandt allows for both the automated or manual annotation of feature points (page 3, “the starting point for our work is that the line approximating the pectoral muscle, the nipple location, and breast boundary approximation are known or given manually;” page 10, “First the boundary parabolae were computed by four manually picked points: the nipple A, a point on the upper and lower part of the breast boundary, respectively, and one more point in the breast in the normal direction from the nipple”). It is well known by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the claimed invention that a user (physician) may like to select their feature points independently of the automated selection, to ensure the accuracy of the selection. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teaching of Brandt to ensure a user trusts an output, and further is given an accurate output by performing manual selection.
Regarding dependent claim 5, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein. Additionally, Zheng and Sugiyama in the combination as a whole fails to explicitly disclose further comprising receiving a user input identifying the chest wall.
However, Brandt discloses further comprising receiving a user input identifying the chest wall (page 3, “the starting point for our work is that the line approximating the pectoral muscle, the nipple location, and breast boundary approximation are known or given manually;” page 10, “First the boundary parabolae were computed by four manually picked points: the nipple A, a point on the upper and lower part of the breast boundary, respectively, and one more point in the breast in the normal direction from the nipple;” the breast boundary is read as the chest wall).
As noted above, Zheng and Sugiyama are directed toward methods of mammogram image analysis. Further, Zheng is directed toward, “In this study, we developed and tested a new multiview-based computer-aided detection CAD scheme that aims to maintain the same case-based sensitivity level as a single-image-based scheme while substantially increasing the number of masses being detected on both ipsilateral views (abstract)” in breast images. Brandt is directed toward, “We have developed a breast coordinate system that is based on breast anatomy to register female breasts to a common coordinate frame in 2D mediolateral (ML) and mediolateral oblique (MLO) view mammograms (abstract).” As can be easily seen by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the claimed invention, Zheng, Sugiyama and Brandt are directed toward similar methods of endeavor of processing multiple images of the breasts. Further, Brandt allows for both the automated or manual annotation of feature points (page 3, “the starting point for our work is that the line approximating the pectoral muscle, the nipple location, and breast boundary approximation are known or given manually;” page 10, “First the boundary parabolae were computed by four manually picked points: the nipple A, a point on the upper and lower part of the breast boundary, respectively, and one more point in the breast in the normal direction from the nipple”). It is well known by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the claimed invention that a user (physician) may like to select their feature points independently of the automated selection, to ensure the accuracy of the selection. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teaching of Brandt to ensure a user trusts an output, and further is given an accurate output by performing manual selection.
Regarding dependent claim 8, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein. Additionally, Zheng and Sugiyama in the combination as a whole fails to explicitly disclose further comprising receiving a user input indicating a location of the first nipple tip.
However, Brandt discloses further comprising receiving a user input indicating a location of the first nipple tip (page 3, “the starting point for our work is that the line approximating the pectoral muscle, the nipple location, and breast boundary approximation are known or given manually;” page 10, “First the boundary parabolae were computed by four manually picked points: the nipple A, a point on the upper and lower part of the breast boundary, respectively, and one more point in the breast in the normal direction from the nipple;”).
As noted above, Zheng and Sugiyama are directed toward methods of mammogram image analysis. Further, Zheng is directed toward, “In this study, we developed and tested a new multiview-based computer-aided detection CAD scheme that aims to maintain the same case-based sensitivity level as a single-image-based scheme while substantially increasing the number of masses being detected on both ipsilateral views (abstract)” in breast images. Brandt is directed toward, “We have developed a breast coordinate system that is based on breast anatomy to register female breasts to a common coordinate frame in 2D mediolateral (ML) and mediolateral oblique (MLO) view mammograms (abstract).” As can be easily seen by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the claimed invention, Zheng, Sugiyama and Brandt are directed toward similar methods of endeavor of processing multiple images of the breasts. Further, Brandt allows for both the automated or manual annotation of feature points (page 3, “the starting point for our work is that the line approximating the pectoral muscle, the nipple location, and breast boundary approximation are known or given manually;” page 10, “First the boundary parabolae were computed by four manually picked points: the nipple A, a point on the upper and lower part of the breast boundary, respectively, and one more point in the breast in the normal direction from the nipple”). It is well known by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the claimed invention that a user (physician) may like to select their feature points independently of the automated selection, to ensure the accuracy of the selection. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teaching of Brandt to ensure a user trusts an output, and further is given an accurate output by performing manual selection.
Regarding dependent claim 9, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein. Additionally, Zheng and Sugiyama in the combination as a whole fails to explicitly disclose further comprising receiving a user input indicating a location of the second nipple tip
However, Brandt discloses further comprising receiving a user input indicating a location of the second nipple tip (page 3, “the starting point for our work is that the line approximating the pectoral muscle, the nipple location, and breast boundary approximation are known or given manually;” page 10, “First the boundary parabolae were computed by four manually picked points: the nipple A, a point on the upper and lower part of the breast boundary, respectively, and one more point in the breast in the normal direction from the nipple;”).
As noted above, Zheng and Sugiyama are directed toward methods of mammogram image analysis. Further, Zheng is directed toward, “In this study, we developed and tested a new multiview-based computer-aided detection CAD scheme that aims to maintain the same case-based sensitivity level as a single-image-based scheme while substantially increasing the number of masses being detected on both ipsilateral views (abstract)” in breast images. Brandt is directed toward, “We have developed a breast coordinate system that is based on breast anatomy to register female breasts to a common coordinate frame in 2D mediolateral (ML) and mediolateral oblique (MLO) view mammograms (abstract).” As can be easily seen by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the claimed invention, Zheng, Sugiyama and Brandt are directed toward similar methods of endeavor of processing multiple images of the breasts. Further, Brandt allows for both the automated or manual annotation of feature points (page 3, “the starting point for our work is that the line approximating the pectoral muscle, the nipple location, and breast boundary approximation are known or given manually;” page 10, “First the boundary parabolae were computed by four manually picked points: the nipple A, a point on the upper and lower part of the breast boundary, respectively, and one more point in the breast in the normal direction from the nipple”). It is well known by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the claimed invention that a user (physician) may like to select their feature points independently of the automated selection, to ensure the accuracy of the selection. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teaching of Brandt to ensure a user trusts an output, and further is given an accurate output by performing manual selection.
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.
Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Courtney J. Windsor whose telephone number is (571)272-3956. 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, John Villecco can be reached at 571-272-7319. 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.
/COURTNEY JOAN NELSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2661
Prosecution Insights