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 .
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Claim 6,
“a three-dimensional femoral image reconstruction module”; “a surgical path planning module”; “X-ray image acquisition module”; “an X-ray image feature point extraction module”; “a DRR image generation module”; “a DRR image feature point extraction module”; “an image registration module”.
Claim 7,
“a regional feature point selection unit”; “a femoral head fitting circle generating unit”; “a unit”; “a femoral outer contour identification unit”; “an X-ray image feature point extraction unit”.
Claim 8,
“a DRR virtual scene projection parameter setting unit”; “a DRR image generating unit”.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1-2, 5 recite the limitation "the X-ray image", all occurrences. it should have been --the X-ray images--. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 3-4, 9-10 are rejected for the same reasons as set forth above because they depend on claim 1.
Claims 1, 4-5 recite the limitation "the DRR image", all occurrences. There i
s insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 2-3, 9-10 are rejected for the same reasons as set forth above because they depend on claim 1.
Claims 2-5 recite the limitation "the method" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It should have been --the image registration method--
Claims 3-5 recite the limitation "the setting DRR virtual scene projection parameters", all occurrences. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 4-5 are rejected for the same reasons because it depends on claim 3.
Claims 6-7 recite the limitation "the X-ray image", all occurrences. it should have been --the X-ray images--. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 8 is rejected for the same reasons as set forth above because they depend on claim 6.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the DRR image", all occurrences. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 7-8 are rejected for the same reasons as set forth above because they depend on claim 6.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-10 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: No prior arts of record alone or in combination discloses the following:
““obtaining, during the femoral neck fracture surgery, X-ray images photographed by an X-ray machine at different angles, wherein the different angles comprise an anteroposterior/posteroanterior view and a lateral view;
performing data processing on each of the X-ray images, and extracting feature points of the X-ray image;
setting digitally reconstructured radiograph (DRR) virtual scene projection parameters based on a structure of the X-ray machine, projecting the three-dimensional femoral image with the surgical path to generate a plurality of DRR images, and obtaining projection pose coordinates and a surgical path of each of the DRR images;
performing data processing on the DRR image, and extracting feature points of the DRR image;
automatically registering the DRR image and the X-ray image based on a similarity between the feature points of the X-ray image and the feature points of the DRR image, and outputting a surgical path after registration”
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Prior arts
Wang et al (Pub. No.: US 2006/0291710)
Wang et al disclose a similarity measure is used to compare the pixel intensities in the x-ray images and the DRR images to determine any change in the position, orientation, and/or physiological deformation of the patient [see 0032].
registering the x-ray image projected onto the image plane B with the corresponding reference DRR image [see 0028, fig 1A].
Wang et al fail to disclose:
“reconstructing and segmenting femoral image;
obtaining, during the femoral neck fracture surgery, X-ray images photographed by an X-ray machine at different angles, wherein the different angles comprise an anteroposterior/posteroanterior view and a lateral view;
performing data processing on each of the X-ray images, and extracting feature points of the X-ray image;
setting digitally reconstructured radiograph (DRR) virtual scene projection parameters based on a structure of the X-ray machine, projecting the three-dimensional femoral image with the surgical path to generate a plurality of DRR images, and obtaining projection pose coordinates and a surgical path of each of the DRR images;
performing data processing on the DRR image, and extracting feature points of the DRR image;
automatically registering the DRR image and the X-ray image based on a similarity between the feature points of the X-ray image and the feature points of the DRR image, and outputting a surgical path after registration”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOEL F BRUTUS whose telephone number is (571)270-3847. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Sat, 11:00 AM to 7:00 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, Pascal Bui-Pho can be reached at 571-272-2714. 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.
/JOEL F BRUTUS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3798