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 .
Notice to Applicants
This action is in response to the Restriction Election filed on 02/27/2026.
Claims 1-38 are pending.
Priority
The Application claims priority to Provisional Application 63/375,989 with filing date 09/16/2022, which is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) filed on 12/16/2024 has been fully considered by the examiner.
Restriction/Election
The examiner thanks Applicant for their careful consideration of the restriction requirement mailed on 10/27/2025.
The restriction requirement asserted that the claims are directed to three distinct inventions, those being Group I (Claims 1-16 & 33-34), Group II (Claims 17-25 & 35-36), and Group III (Claims 26-32 & 37-38). In the response filed without traverse on 02/27/2026, Applicant amended independent claims 17 and 26 to instead depend on claim 1, arguing that the elected Group I contains Claims 1-38 as amended.
The examiner respectfully disagrees with the characterization that Groups 2-3 are now within the elected invention merely based on their rewriting to be dependent; this does not change the significant search burden established in the Restriction Requirement that was not challenged by Applicant.
Newly submitted claims 17-32 and 35-38 are directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons: based on their new dependence on claim 1, claims 17-32 and 35-38 now present new combinations of limitations that were not present in the original presentation of claims.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 17-32 and 35-38 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
The examiner notes that claims 17-32 and 35-38, in their current dependent form, will be subject to rejoinder once the present claim 1 is found to be allowable.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because Figures 5, 7, and 9-11 contain text of low reproduction quality such that some or all of the text in each of these Figures is illegible. The examiner respectfully requests updating drawings with clearer text reproductions. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-7, 9-16 and 33-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract ideas without significantly more.
Analysis for claim 1 is provided in the following. Claim 1 is reproduced in the following (annotation added):
A method for visualizing luminance variance for an object, the method comprising:
receiving image data associated with a digital input image of the object;
and applying an algorithm to the image data to generate an enhanced image comprising connected pixel value (CPV) lines representative of pixel value ranges from the input image
to enable visualization of the luminance variance of the object by the human eye.
Step 1: Does the claim belong to one of the statutory categories? Claim 1 is directed to a process, which is a statutory category of invention (YES).
Step 2A Prong One: Does the claim recite a judicial exception? Part c is regarded as reciting a mental process that can be practically performed in the human mind. The recited “algorithm” can consist of performing any steps, as long as they result in generating an image containing CPV lines, the broadest reasonable interpretation of which are any lines/contours/shapes delineating groups of pixels of similar values. The human mind can easily determine such lines, and a human, with the aid of pen and paper, can practically generate such an image of any size or complexity. Note that the courts do not distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2).III) (YES).
Step 2A Prong Two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? Part a is a preamble that does not further limit the claim. Part b is regarded as mere data gathering. Part d is an additional element, but is regarded as a natural result of performing any image segmentation/annotation, and thus does not integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application (NO).
Step 2B: Does the claim as a whole amount to significantly more than the recited exception? The claim as a whole recites mere data gathering, and applying an algorithm that is practically performable in the human mind to said data, with the only application being an expected result (NO). Claim 1 is not eligible.
Claim 2 narrows the algorithm to include applying each of a smoothing function, a non-linear transfer function, and a bi-directional derivative operator to the input image, which are all directed to mathematical calculations. Claim 2 is not eligible.
Claim 3 specifies that the non-linear transfer function changes pixel values non-linearly, which does not integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application. Claim 3 is not eligible.
Claim 4 recites that the luminance variance corresponds to changes in local luminance values, which does not integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application. Claim 4 is not eligible.
Claim 5 recites mapping a magnitude of luminance variance of pixels to a grayscale or color palette, which is practically performable in the human mind. Claim 5 is not eligible.
Claim 6 narrows the choice of palette to specifically a color palette, and recites selecting the palette for human vision perception, both of which are still practically performable in the human mind. Claim 6 is not eligible.
Claim 7 narrows the choice of palette to specifically a grayscale palette, and further recites that higher pixel values correspond to higher luminance variance, both of which are still practically performable in the human mind. Claim 7 is not eligible.
Claim 8 narrows the choice of palette to specifically a grayscale palette, which is still practically performable in the human mind. However, claim 8 narrows the contents of the image to include vasculature of a body tissue, and requires the darkest pixels in the enhanced image to correspond to lumen margins of the vasculature, which integrates the judicial exceptions into a practical application and reflects the disclosed solutions to problems discussed in at least paragraphs 0003 and 0056-0062 of the originally-filed specification. Claim 8 is eligible.
Claims 9-13 specify various characteristics of the CPV lines that are natural results of performing such segmentations. Claims 9-13 are not eligible.
Claims 14-16 narrow the input image to specific species, which does not integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application. Claims 14-16 are not eligible.
Claims 33-34 recite computerized systems at a high level of generality, which does not integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application. Claims 33-34 are not eligible.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 9-16, and 33-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Mashiach (U.S. Publ. US-2007/0160274-A1).
Regarding claim 1, Mashiach discloses a method for visualizing luminance variance for an object (see figure 5D and paragraphs 0003-0010), the method comprising:
receiving image data associated with a digital input image of the object (see paragraph 0025, where an imager can capture one or more images of a body, such as of blood vessels);
and applying an algorithm to the image data to generate an enhanced image (see figure 5D and paragraphs 0037-0078, where the algorithm includes thresholding and watershed segmentation steps to identify groups of pixels of similar intensity ranges; paragraph 0069 also details that a gradient map can be calculated across the image) comprising connected pixel value (CPV) lines representative of pixel value ranges from the input image (see figure 5C and paragraph 0071, where the input image can be partitioned into a set of areas bounded by contours/CPV lines based on the clustered pixel intensity values) to enable visualization of the luminance variance of the object by the human eye (see figure 5C and paragraphs 0032-0033 and 0071, where the contour lines enable the human eye to visualize changes in intensity values across the image).
PNG
media_image1.png
633
580
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Mashiach Figure 5C
Regarding claim 9, Mashiach discloses wherein a distance between adjacent connected pixel value lines in the enhanced image is indicative of a rate of change of the luminance variance in pixel values in the input image (see figure 5C and paragraph 0071, where the distance between the contours of the regions naturally imply the rate of change of the pixel values; for example, the close proximity of the contours of regions 444 and 446 imply that the intensity of those pixels change rapidly across those areas, whereas the larger distance between the contours of regions 444 and 442 implies a slower rate of change of pixels).
Regarding claim 10, Mashiach discloses wherein the luminance variance corresponds to changes in luminance values in the input image (see figure 5C and paragraph 0071, where the input image can be partitioned into a set of areas bounded by contours/CPV lines based on the clustered pixel intensity values; thus, the visualization created by the contours represents changes in intensity/luminance values across the different regions of the image),
wherein a distance between adjacent connected pixel value lines in the enhanced image is indicative of a rate of change in luminance values in the input image (see citations for claim 9 above),
and wherein the rate of change in luminance values in the input image is indicative of fluid flow in the object (paragraph 0025 specifies that the images can include CT Angiography images of body parts that naturally include fluid flow, such as blood vessels, urinary tracts or bile ducts; as the discussed contours reflect the rate of change of values in the image, they would naturally reflect the rate of fluid flow depicted in these types of images).
Regarding claim 11, Mashiach discloses wherein closeness or separation of the CPV lines is indicative of delineation between regions of similarity (see figure 5C and paragraph 0071, where the closeness or separation of the contours naturally indicate how close/far groups of similar pixels are between each other).
Regarding claim 12, Mashiach discloses wherein closeness or separation of the CPV lines conveys structural meaning associated with patterns in the object (see paragraphs 0033-0036, where structural information of a blood vessel can be indicated by the boundaries of one or more of the contour regions).
Regarding claim 13, Mashiach discloses wherein closeness or separation of the CPV lines is indicative of a directionality of change of luminance values (see figure 5C and paragraph 0071, where the closeness or separation of the contours naturally reflect which directions the pixel values change in; for example, moving from the center of region 446, the values change rapidly in the east direction, whereas they change more slowly in the southwest direction).
Regarding claim 14, Mashiach discloses wherein the input image is an X-ray angiogram (see paragraph 0025).
Regarding claim 15, Mashiach discloses wherein the input image is a heart ultrasound image (see paragraph 0025).
Regarding claim 16, Mashiach discloses wherein the input image is a CT scan (see paragraph 0025).
Regarding claim 33, Mashiach discloses a system comprising: one or more memory units, each operable to store at least one program; and at least one processor communicatively coupled to one or more memory units (see figure 1, processor 100, memory unit 102 and paragraph 0024),
in which the at least one program, when executed by at least one processor, causes at least one processor to perform the steps according to the method of claim 1 (see paragraph 0024).
Regarding claim 34, Mashiach discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having stored thereon computer-executable instructions which, when executed by a processor, perform the steps according to the method of claim 1 (see figure 1, processor 100, memory unit 102 and paragraph 0024).
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 2-5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mashiach (U.S. Publ. US-2007/0160274-A1) in view of Song et al. (U.S. Publ. US-2020/0242772-A1).
Regarding claim 2, Mashiach discloses wherein the algorithm comprises: applying a smoothing function to the image data to obtain a smoothed image (see paragraph 0078, where pre-processing steps can include applying filters, such as a Gaussian filter, to smooth the image before further processing);
applying a non-linear transfer function to the smoothed image to obtain changes in values of the luminance variance associated with the input image (see paragraph 0069, where a contour gradient map can be calculated across the image; the examiner regards this gradient map as representing changes in values of the luminance variance, in view of paragraph 0065 of the originally-filed specification of the present application);
wherein the enhanced image comprises the connected pixel values (see figure 5C and paragraph 0071).
Mashiach fails to disclose applying a bi-directional derivative operator to the changes to obtain the enhanced image.
Pertaining to the same field of endeavor, Song discloses applying a bi-directional derivative operator to the changes to obtain the enhanced image (see paragraphs 0041-0043, where gradients in both the horizontal and vertical directions can be calculated to delineate contours of pixel regions).
Mashiach and Song are considered analogous art, as they are both directed to calculation of gradient maps for image segmentation. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have integrated the teachings of Song into Mashiach because doing so allows for evaluating the rate of change of luminance in more than one direction (see Song paragraphs 0041-0043).
Regarding claim 3, Mashiach in view of Song discloses wherein the non-linear transfer function is configured to change pixel values non-linearly (see Mashiach paragraph 0077, where post-processing steps can include applying dilation or erosion algorithms, which modify the pixel segmentations non-linearly).
Regarding claim 4, Mashiach in view of Song discloses the luminance variance corresponds to changes in local luminance values in the input image (see Mashiach figure 5C and paragraph 0071, where the input image can be partitioned into a set of areas bounded by contours/CPV lines based on the clustered pixel intensity values; thus, the visualization created by the contours represents changes in intensity/luminance values across the different regions of the image).
Regarding claim 5, Mashiach fails to disclose the limitations of claim 5. More specifically, paragraph 0057 specifies that a color or other marking can be assigned to each contour level, but not specifically assigning colors based on the gradient/variance of said pixels.
Pertaining to the same field of endeavor, Song discloses wherein in the enhanced image, a magnitude of luminance variance of pixels is mapped to a grayscale or a color palette (see figure 2C and paragraphs 0013 and 0041-0043, where the gradient magnitude process generates a grayscale image such as figure 2C, where lighter pixel values correspond to stronger edges/variance magnitude).
Mashiach and Song are considered analogous art, as they are both directed to calculation of gradient maps for image segmentation. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have integrated the teachings of Song into Mashiach because doing so allows for visualizing the strength of edges across the image (see Song figure 2C and paragraphs 0041-0043).
Regarding claim 7, Mashiach fails to disclose the limitations of claim 7,
Pertaining to the same field of endeavor, Song discloses wherein the magnitude of density of luminance variance is mapped to the grayscale, wherein relatively higher pixel values in the grayscale are indicative of relatively higher values of the luminance variance in the input image (see citations for claim 5 above).
Mashiach and Song are considered analogous art, as they are both directed to calculation of gradient maps for image segmentation. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have integrated the teachings of Song into Mashiach because doing so allows for visualizing the strength of edges across the image (see Song figure 2C and paragraphs 0041-0043).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mashiach (U.S. Publ. US-2007/0160274-A1) in view of Song et al. (U.S. Publ. US-2020/0242772-A1), and further in view of Rottger (U.S. Publ. US-2009/0002369-A1).
Regarding claim 6, Mashiach in view of Song fails to disclose the limitations of claim 6.
Pertaining to the same field of endeavor, Rottger discloses wherein the magnitude of luminance variance of pixels is mapped to a color palette (see figures 1-3 and paragraphs 0008 and 0027-0028, where a transfer function converts voxel scalar and gradient values to color and opacity values),
and the color palette is selected for human vision perception (see paragraph 0013).
Mashiach and Rottger are considered analogous art, as they are both directed to calculation of gradient maps for image segmentation. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have integrated the teachings of Rottger into Mashiach and Song because doing so improves the spatial impression and boundaries of arteries in medical image (see Rottger paragraph 0013).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mashiach (U.S. Publ. US-2007/0160274-A1) in view of Song et al. (U.S. Publ. US-2020/0242772-A1), and further in view of Fleizach (U.S. Publ. US-2020/0098093-A1).
Regarding claim 8, Mashiach discloses wherein the object is a body tissue including vasculature (see paragraph 0025, where an imager can capture one or more images of a body, such as of blood vessels),
Mashiach fails to disclose wherein the magnitude of luminance variance of pixels is mapped to the grayscale.
Pertaining to the same field of endeavor, Song discloses wherein the magnitude of luminance variance of pixels is mapped to the grayscale (see citations for claim 5 above).
Mashiach and Song are considered analogous art, as they are both directed to calculation of gradient maps for image segmentation. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have integrated the teachings of Song into Mashiach because doing so allows for visualizing the strength of edges across the image (see Song figure 2C and paragraphs 0041-0043).
Mashiach in view of Song fails to further disclose and wherein darkest pixels in the enhanced image correspond to lumen margins of the vasculature. More specifically, applying Song's method would result in the sharpest regions of an image, such as the lumen boundaries, being assigned the lightest colors, not the darkest; thus, the prior art merely needs to teach assigning darker values to stronger edges instead of lighter values.
Pertaining to the same field of endeavor, Fleizach discloses and wherein darkest pixels in the enhanced image correspond to lumen margins of the vasculature (see paragraph 0044, where stronger edge pixels can be assigned lighter or darker values, depending on the context of the image).
Mashiach and Fleizach are considered analogous art, as they are both directed to calculation of gradient maps for image segmentation. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have integrated the teachings of Fleizach into Mashiach and Song because doing so improves visibility of the image gradients/edges (see Fleizach paragraph 0044).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS JOHN HELCO whose telephone number is (703)756-5539. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Matthew Bella, can be reached at telephone number 571-272-7778. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/NICHOLAS JOHN HELCO/Examiner, Art Unit 2667
/MATTHEW C BELLA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2667
Prosecution Insights