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
The Amendment filed December 17th, 2025 has been entered. Claims 1-20 are pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
The Examiner appreciates the Applicant’s thorough review of the previous Non-Final action. Applicant's arguments filed December 17th, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues: “Bystrov does not disclose "adjusting, using a processor or computer, a point on a boundary of the 3D mesh in an editing region of the 3D mesh using an anisotropic weighting factor that restricts the adjustment made to the point if the point lies in a first direction relative to the editing plane," as recited in claim 1 (emphasis added).” The Examiner respectfully disagrees, for the reasons cited below.
One of ordinary skill in the art would understand “anisotropic” to mean “having a physical property that has a different value when measured in different directions”. Bystrov teaches: “As an alternative to a fixed scalar ratio λ, the ratio also may be adapted to the current viewing resolution (zoom factor) or may be applied differently in different spatial directions depending on the current viewing direction” [0047]. Therefore, the variable λ taught by Bystrov can be anisotropic.
Bystrov further teaches: “FIGS. 3A-3C show the results of transforming a 1D function with λ =0.4 and λ =1.8. In FIG. 3A, a 1-D example is shown for a deformation 50 of a function using a small fixed Gaussian kernel.” [0046] and further teaches that: “The memory stores a Gaussian kernel adjustment (GKA) algorithm or module 330 that adjusts the size of a Gaussian kernel used to deform a mesh model contour as a function of a magnitude of mouse or other input device movement by a user, as described with regard to FIGS. 1-3.” (emphasis added) [0068].
That is, the anisotropic value λ is used as a factor to weight a 1D function that is further used to adjust or deform a 3D mesh contour, or boundary. Therefore, Bystrov teaches “adjusting, using a processor or computer, a point on a boundary of the 3D mesh in an editing region of the 3D mesh using an anisotropic weighting factor”.
The rest of the limitation may be explicitly found in three spots in the Bystrov reference:
Bystrov teaches in the Abstract that; “The deformation mapping involves a Gaussian function (Gaussian deformation kernel) restricting the deformation to a local region.” (emphasis added). Above, it was discussed how the anisotropic weighting factor, λ is part of the Gaussian kernel algorithm. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand Bystrov to teach an anisotropic weighting factor that restricts a deformation created by the user.
Furthermore, Bystrov explicitly teaches “providing an in-plane editing experience (2D editing)” where the user draws a free-hand curve, as addressed by the applicant. Bystrov further teaches that: “FIG. 5B illustrates the ROI contour 104 along the entire intersection of the mesh (not shown) with the image plane 102. It is this contour that the user will edit.” [0054]. Therefore, when the user edits the mesh boundary, they will do so relative to the image or editing plane 102 shown in Figure 5B.
As discussed in Note 1A in the previous action, Bystrov teaches that the factor λ “may be applied differently in different spatial directions depending on the current viewing direction” [0047], where the “current viewing direction “ was considered analogous to the claimed “first direction”.
When the edit is restricted to a local region (as discussed in point 1), one would understand Bystrov to teach restricting if the edit (as in point 2) by the user relative the viewing direction of the image plane (point 3). Therefore, given these three points, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand Bystrov to teach “adjusting, using a processor or computer, a point on a boundary of the 3D mesh in an editing region of the 3D mesh using an anisotropic weighting factor that restricts the adjustment made to the point if the point lies in a first direction relative to the editing plane," as recited in claim 1.
The Applicant states: “Subsequently, a curvature of deformation is adjusted such that the curvature of deformation is adjusted in accordance with the distance between the start point and an end point.” The Examiner would like to highlight that it is not just the distance between the start point and an end point that determines how the mesh is deformed. Paragraph [0042] of Bystrov teaches multiple variables, such as the distance mentioned by the Applicant, but also a radius, and the factor lambda (λ) discussed above and in the previous action.
The Applicant also argues: “one skilled in art would not combine Bystrov and Stehle since Bystrov relates to the curvature of deformation of a mesh, whereas Stehle relates to setting views of 3D images.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees, because the teachings of Stehle directly benefit the functionality of Bystrov. Bystrov, shown in Fig. 5A and 5B, teaches that an image plane is necessary to edit the mesh. The Examiner agrees with the Applicant that “Stehle discloses that the system adjusts the orientation of a view of the 3D image, because a specific view may be ill-suited for the planned editing action.” Therefore, Stelhe enhances Bystrov by automatically determining a editing plane so that it is “not needed for the user to manually navigate through the 3D image to obtain a view which is suitable for mesh editing, which is typically time consuming.” (Stehle, Abstract). The Examiner submits that this improvement would motivate one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Stehle with Bystrov.
For at least the above reasons, the Examiner is not convinced that Bystrov in view of Stehle fails to teach the limitations of claim 1. Accordingly, the 103 rejection of claim 1 is maintained.
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 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bystrov (US 20130135305 A1) in view of Stelhe (US 20180158252 A1).
Regarding claim 1:
Bystrov teaches:
A method for determining editing to be applied to a three-dimensional (3D) mesh, that represents a segmentation of a 3D image, the method comprising:
responsive to receiving an adjustment to be applied to a first position on the 3D mesh (Bystrov: a technique is described for automatically adjusting a scaling parameter of a segmentation tool in dependency on the distance between start- and end-points of a user-selected line or curve [0040]) in an editing plane (Bystrov: the described systems and methods facilitate providing an in-plane editing experience [0040]) of the 3D image,
adjusting, using a processor or computer, a point on a boundary of the 3D mesh in an editing region of the 3D mesh (Bystrov: the invertible transformation T is executed to deform the contour or region along the line between the start and end points, [0042]) using an anisotropic weighting factor that restricts the adjustment made to the point if the point lies in a first direction relative to the editing plane (see Note 1A and Response to Arguments above).
Note 1A: Bystrov shows in “FIGS. 3A-3C show the results of transforming a 1D function with λ =0.4 and λ =1.8. […] FIG. 3B shows an example of a deformation 60 of the same function wherein λ =0.4, in which a corrupted and non-unique distribution 62 is present. FIG. 3C shows a deformation 70 of the same function, wherein λ =1.8.” [0046]. Note that in Fig. 3C, the λ scaling factor causes some points to move by more than others. For example, the maximum point remains in the same spot, while the point that was adjusted moves farther to the right. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that the λ factor “restricts” the adjustment made to the point.
Bystrov further teaches: “As an alternative to a fixed scalar ratio λ, the ratio also may be adapted to the current viewing resolution (zoom factor) or may be applied differently in different spatial directions depending on the current viewing direction,” [0047]. That is, the λ factor may be based on a current viewing direction relative to the editing plane.
Bystrov fails to explicitly teach:
receiving an indication of an adjustment to be applied to a first position on the 3D mesh
Stelhe teaches:
receiving an indication of an adjustment to be applied to a first position on the 3D mesh (Stelhe: receiving user input data indicative of an editing action to be applied to at least a part of the mesh shown in the view; [0018])
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Stelhe with Bystrov. Receiving an indication of an adjustment to be applied to a first position on the 3D mesh, as in Stelhe, would benefit the Bystrov teachings by enabling the system to recognize user input without needing to check the specifics of the input data.
Regarding claim 2:
Bystrov in view of Stehle teaches:
The method as claimed in 1 (as shown above), wherein the editing plane is at least one of:
comprised in a slice of the 3D image (see Note 2A); or
a central plane of a slice of the 3D image.
Note 2A: Stehle teaches: “The viewing parameters may take various forms. For example, they may define a viewing plane from which the view may be generated. Such a viewing plane 240 is shown in FIG. 2A as a line intersecting the mesh part 230 orthogonally,” [0085]. Because the viewing plane intersects the mesh, it may reasonably be considered as part of a “slice” of the 3D mesh. In Note 1A, it was shown that “the ratio also may be adapted to the current viewing resolution (zoom factor) or may be applied differently in different spatial directions depending on the current viewing direction,” Bystrov, [0046]. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have the editing plane comprise a slice of the 3D image.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Stelhe with Bystrov. Having the editing plane be comprised in a slice of the 3D image, as in Stelhe, would benefit the Bystrov teachings by enabling the user to edit the 3D mesh while viewing an interior slice of said mesh.
Regarding claim 3:
Bystrov in view of Stelhe teaches:
The method as in claim 1 (as shown above), wherein the first direction comprises at least one of:
a direction normal to the editing plane (see Note 3A);
a direction parallel to an axis of interest;
a direction parallel to an axis of an anatomical feature in the 3D image;
a direction parallel to an axis of a ventricle in the 3D image;
or a direction parallel to an axis of a prostate in the 3D image.
Note 3A: Stehle teaches: “A scene camera may then be placed such that its axis coincides with the computed normal vector. That is, its axis may pierce the surface in the selected point and it is parallel to the normal direction,” [0091]. In Note 1A, it was shown that a “current viewing direction” is oriented relative to the editing plane, and analogous to the first direction. Therefore, because the scene camera is placed based on the normal direction, it is reasonable to conclude that the viewing direction of the camera comprises a direction normal to the editing plane.
Regarding claim 4:
Bystrov in view of Stelhe teaches:
The method as claimed in any preceding claim 1 (as shown above), wherein the anisotropic weighting factor is determined for the point based on a restriction function (Bystrov: The deformation mapping involves a Gaussian function (Gaussian deformation kernel) restricting the deformation to a local region, Abstract).
Regarding claim 7:
Bystrov in view of Stelhe teaches:
The method as claimed in claim 4 (as shown above), wherein the restriction function is at least one of:
a smooth weighting function (see Note 7A); or
a sigmoid function.
Note 7A: The Gaussian function is well known in the art as a smooth weighting function. See also Note 5A, which showcases that the Gaussian function described by Bystrov has an adjustable smoothness parameter.
Regarding claim 8:
Bystrov in view of Stelhe teaches:
The method as claimed in claim 4 (as shown above), wherein the restriction function restricts the editing region to define a restricted editing region (Bystrov: The deformation mapping involves a Gaussian function (Gaussian deformation kernel) restricting the deformation to a local region, Abstract).
Regarding claim 9:
Bystrov in view of Stelhe teaches:
The method as claimed in claim 8 (as shown above), wherein the restricted editing region is restricted relative to the editing region in at least one of:
direction (Bystrov: The parameter r specifies the local and global influence of the transformation, [0003]; see Note 9A); or
the first the first direction and a second direction opposite to the first direction.
Note 9A: Bystrov teaches: “The deformation mapping involves a Gaussian function (Gaussian deformation kernel) restricting the deformation to a local region,” Abstract, and “The parameter r specifies the local and global influence of the transformation,” [0003]. That is, the radius parameter r of the Gaussian function (see Note 5A for more details) determines how the editing or “local” region is restricted.
Bystrov further teaches: “a radius of a Gaussian kernel that is used to deform a mesh contour can be adjusted on the fly as a function of a magnitude of mouse (or other input device) movement by a user, [0041]. In Note 3A, it was shown that Stehle teaches: “A scene camera may then be placed such that its axis coincides with the computed normal vector. That is, its axis may pierce the surface in the selected point and it is parallel to the normal direction,” [0091]. Bystrov further showcases that the user interacts with a 3D mesh via a viewport with the mouse interacting with the mesh in a 3D environment. Because the viewport must have a camera, it is inherent that any operations performed via the viewport are affected by a “direction”, namely, the viewing direction of the scene camera.
When the teachings of Stelhe are combined with Bystrov, it would be obvious to restrict the local region of a deformation based on a direction.
Regarding claim 12:
Bystrov in view of Stelhe teaches:
The method as claimed in claim 1 (as shown above), wherein the 3D image comprises a plurality of slices to be edited in succession (Bystrov: FIGS. 9A-9C show several slices of the diagnostic image, [0032]), and the first direction opposes a direction in which slices are to be edited (see Note 12A).
Note 12A: In Note 1A, it was shown that it is reasonable to conclude that the λ factor “restricts” the adjustment made to the point. Bystrov teaches: “As an alternative to a fixed scalar ratio λ, the ratio also may be adapted to the current viewing resolution (zoom factor) or may be applied differently in different spatial directions depending on the current viewing direction,” [0047]. When the λ factor restricts an adjustment, it must oppose the adjustment being made, which means the direction the λ factor is applied in will oppose the direction in which the slices are to be adjusted.
Regarding claim 13:
Bystrov in view of Stelhe teaches:
The method as claimed in claim 1 (as shown above), wherein the method comprises determining an editing region based on the received indication of an adjustment to be applied to the first position on the 3D mesh (Bystrov: The deformation mapping involves a Gaussian function (Gaussian deformation kernel) restricting the deformation to a local region, Abstract), wherein the editing region is a region in which the boundary of the 3D mesh are to be adjusted (Bystrov: FIG. 6 illustrates a top-down thoracic CT image that has been segmented. In order to correct an ROI boundary about an ROI, the user draws a free hand curve, [0029]; see Note 13A).
Note 13A: Bystrov showcases that a boundary of an ROI (region of interest) may be adjusted by the user. Bystrov further teaches: “It will be appreciated that the herein-described techniques can be used for triangular mesh-based ROI editing in any suitable applications; both for 3D editing use cases and in-plane 2D editing use cases,” [0064]. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the method of Bystrov to a 3D mesh.
Regarding claim 14:
Bystrov teaches:
A system (Bystrov: system 300 [0065]) for determining editing to be applied to a three-dimensional (3D) mesh that represents a segmentation of a 3D image, the system comprising:
a memory comprising instruction data representing a set of instructions (Bystrov: a memory 310 that stores, computer-executable instructions for carrying out the various methods, techniques, etc., described herein [0066]); and
a processor configured to communicate with the memory and to execute the set of instructions, wherein the set of instructions, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to (Bystrov: The user interface includes a processor 308 that executes, […] computer-executable instructions for carrying out the various methods, techniques, etc., described herein [0066]):
responsive to receiving an adjustment to be applied to a first position on the 3D mesh (Bystrov: a technique is described for automatically adjusting a scaling parameter of a segmentation tool in dependency on the distance between start- and end-points of a user-selected line or curve [0040]) in an editing plane (Bystrov: the described systems and methods facilitate providing an in-plane editing experience [0040]) of the 3D image,
adjusting, using a processor or computer, a point on a boundary of the 3D mesh in an editing region of the 3D mesh (Bystrov: the invertible transformation T is executed to deform the contour or region along the line between the start and end points, [0042]) using an anisotropic weighting factor that restricts the adjustment made to the point if the point lies in a first direction relative to the editing plane (see Note 1A and Response to Arguments above).
Bystrov fails to explicitly teach:
receiving an indication of an adjustment to be applied to a first position on the 3D mesh
Stelhe teaches:
receiving an indication of an adjustment to be applied to a first position on the 3D mesh (Stelhe: receiving user input data indicative of an editing action to be applied to at least a part of the mesh shown in the view; [0018])
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Stelhe with Bystrov. Receiving an indication of an adjustment to be applied to a first position on the 3D mesh, as in Stelhe, would benefit the Bystrov teachings by enabling the system to recognize user input without needing to check the specifics of the input data.
Regarding claim 15:
Bystrov in view of Stelhe teaches:
A non-transitory computer readable medium having computer readable code which, when executed by a processor (Bystrov: The method, which may be executed by a processor and stored as a set of computer-executable instructions on a computer-readable medium, [0049]), causes the processor to:
responsive to receiving an adjustment to be applied to a first position on the 3D mesh (Bystrov: a technique is described for automatically adjusting a scaling parameter of a segmentation tool in dependency on the distance between start- and end-points of a user-selected line or curve [0040]) in an editing plane (Bystrov: the described systems and methods facilitate providing an in-plane editing experience [0040]) of the 3D image, wherein the 3D mesh represents a segmentation of a 3D image (Bystrov: In accordance with one aspect, a method of invertibly deforming a diagnostic image segmentation mesh [0014]),
adjusting, using a processor or computer, a point on a boundary of the 3D mesh in an editing region of the 3D mesh (Bystrov: the invertible transformation T is executed to deform the contour or region along the line between the start and end points, [0042]) using an anisotropic weighting factor that restricts the adjustment made to the point if the point lies in a first direction relative to the editing plane (see Note 1A and Response to Arguments above).
Bystrov fails to explicitly teach:
receiving an indication of an adjustment to be applied to a first position on the 3D mesh
Stelhe teaches:
receiving an indication of an adjustment to be applied to a first position on the 3D mesh (Stelhe: receiving user input data indicative of an editing action to be applied to at least a part of the mesh shown in the view; [0018])
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Stelhe with Bystrov. Receiving an indication of an adjustment to be applied to a first position on the 3D mesh, as in Stelhe, would benefit the Bystrov teachings by enabling the system to recognize user input without needing to check the specifics of the input data.
Regarding claim 16:
Bystrov in view of Stehle teaches:
The computer readable medium of claim 15 (as shown above), wherein the editing plane is at least one of:
comprised in a slice of the 3D image (see Note 2A); or
a central plane of a slice of the 3D image.
Regarding claim 17:
Bystrov in view of Stehle teaches:
The computer readable medium of claim 15 (as shown above), wherein the first direction comprises at least one of:
a direction normal to the editing plane (see Note 3A);
a direction parallel to an axis of interest;
a direction parallel to an axis of an anatomical feature in the 3D image;
a direction parallel to an axis of a ventricle in the 3D image; or
a direction parallel to an axis of a prostate in the 3D image.
Regarding claim 18:
Bystrov in view of Stehle teaches:
The computer readable medium of claim 15 (as shown above), wherein the anisotropic weighting factor is determined for the point based on a restriction function (Bystrov: The deformation mapping involves a Gaussian function (Gaussian deformation kernel) restricting the deformation to a local region, Abstract).
Regarding claim 20:
Bystrov in view of Stehle teaches:
The computer readable medium of claim 18 (as shown above), wherein the restriction function restricts the editing region to define a restricted editing region (Bystrov: The deformation mapping involves a Gaussian function (Gaussian deformation kernel) restricting the deformation to a local region, Abstract).
Claims 5 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bystrov (US 20130135305 A1) in view of Stelhe (US 20180158252 A1) and Fisher (NPL: Gaussian Smoothing).
Regarding claim 5:
Bystrov in view of Stelhe and Fisher teaches:
The method as claimed in claim 4 (as shown above), wherein parameters of the restriction function comprise at least one of:
a distance of the point from the editing plane in the first direction (Bystrov: The distance the mesh vertices move decreases exponentially with the distance to the start point, Abstract);
a smoothness parameter (Bystrov: deforming a diagnostic image segmentation mesh by automatically adjusting a radius of curvature of a deformation kernel [0014], see Note 5A); or
the first direction.
Note 5A: Bystrov teaches a radius parameter “r” as part of their Gaussian equation:
PNG
media_image1.png
65
221
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Equation shown under paragraph [0004] in Bystrov.
Fisher teaches that:
PNG
media_image2.png
141
344
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Equation from Pg. 1 of Fisher.
Note that the standard deviation σ is in a similar place to the variable r in Bystrov (it appears squared, as the denominator of a negated division while being part of an exponent of e). Fisher further teaches: “The degree of smoothing is determined by the standard deviation of the Gaussian,” (Pg. 3, Guidelines for Use, par. 1). Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that the radius parameter r in Bystrov controls the smoothness, thereby being a “smoothness parameter”.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Fisher with Bystrov in view of Stelhe because Fisher teaches details of the Gaussian equation utilized by Bystrov.
Regarding claim 19:
Bystrov in view of Stehle and Fisher teaches:
The computer readable medium of claim 18 (as shown above), wherein parameters of the restriction function comprise at least one of:
a distance of the point from the editing plane in the first direction (Bystrov: The distance the mesh vertices move decreases exponentially with the distance to the start point, Abstract);
a smoothness parameter (Bystrov: deforming a diagnostic image segmentation mesh by automatically adjusting a radius of curvature of a deformation kernel [0014], see Note 5A); or
the first direction.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bystrov (US 20130135305 A1) in view of Stelhe (US 20180158252 A1), Fisher (NPL: Gaussian Smoothing), and Nie (US 20190139223 A1).
Regarding claim 6:
Bystrov in view of Stelhe and Fisher teaches:
The method as claimed in claim 5 (as shown above),
Bystrov in view of Stelhe and Fisher fails to teach:
wherein the distance of the point from the editing plane in the first direction is normalized with respect to the thickness of a slice comprising the editing plane.
Nie teaches:
wherein the distance of the point from the editing plane in the first direction is normalized with respect to the thickness of a slice comprising the editing plane (Nie: The normalizing vector distance may define the spectral difference between two voxels with a comprehensive consideration of the spectral angle and the spectral distance; [0157]).
Nie teaches determination of a “seed point” based on voxels using a “normalizing vector distance”: “In some embodiments, the initial seed point may be selected based on one or more selection standards in operation 1102. […] The selection standard(s) may include […] a normalizing vector distance, [0157], and that “The normalizing vector distance may define the spectral difference between two voxels with a comprehensive consideration of the spectral angle and the spectral distance; [0157].
Said voxels are based on the slices of a 3D mesh: Nie: “As for volume rendering, the VOI determination module 306 may consider each pixel in a two-dimensional slice image as a hexahedral element (i.e., a voxel) in a three-dimensional space,” [0074]. When a slice is considered to be composed of 3D voxels, the slice must have a ‘thickness’ (in contrast to, for example, a plane, which may have no thickness). Additionally, the voxels are analogous to the editing plane, as they are derived from the slice images (previously shown in Note 2A to be analogous to an editing plane).
Because Nie utilizes a “normalizing vector distance”, as best understood by the examiner, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to normalize the distance between the voxels of the editing plane and the seed point with respect to the thickness of said editing plane.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Nie with Bystrov in view of Stelhe and Fisher. Having the distance of the point from the editing plane in the first direction be normalized with respect to the thickness of a slice comprising the editing plane, as in Nie, would benefit the Bystrov in view of Stelhe and Fisher teachings by enabling the user to edit the 3D mesh while viewing an interior slice of said mesh.
Claim 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bystrov (US 20130135305 A1) in view of Stelhe (US 20180158252 A1) and Krauter (US 20080109717 A1).
Bystrov in view of Stelhe teaches:
The method as claimed in claim 1 (as shown above),
Bystrov in view of Stelhe fails to teach:
wherein anisotropic weighting factor restricts the adjustment made to the point to zero adjustment if at least one of:
the point lies outside of a slice comprising the editing plane; or
the point lies in or beyond an editing plane of an adjacent slice.
Krauter teaches:
wherein anisotropic weighting factor restricts the adjustment made to the point to zero adjustment (Krauter: [the process] allows a user to restrict the edit history to objects of interest only, [0115]) if at least one of:
the point lies outside of a slice comprising the editing plane (see Note 11A); or
the point lies in or beyond an editing plane of an adjacent slice.
Note 11A: Krauter teaches a method of performing modifications selectively to specific groups of objects (specifically, undo and redo operations). As part of this method, Krauter teaches: “[the process] allows a user to restrict the edit history to objects of interest only. The user also does not have to undo wanted edits if they are outside the region of interest. The user can undo the effect of multiple object editing operations for only selected objects without having to go through a tedious and error prone undo, reselect, and apply operation,” [0115]. That is, edits may be restricted to a region of interest only, and edits outside of the region of interest are “restricted”. Therefore, when combined with the teachings of Bystrov and Stelhe, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement a system that prevents edits to objects outside of the editing plane.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Krauter with Bystrov in view of Stelhe. Having the distance of the point from the editing plane in the first direction be normalized with respect to the thickness of a slice comprising the editing plane, as in Krauter, would benefit the Bystrov in view of Stelhe teachings by enabling the user to edit the 3D mesh while viewing an interior slice of said mesh.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 10 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 10:
Bystrov in view of Stelhe teaches:
The method as claimed in claim 8 (as shown above),
Bystrov in view of Stelhe fails to teach:
wherein at least one of the width and sharpness of a border of the restricted editing region in the first direction is defined relative to the thickness of a slice comprising the editing plane.
Oh (US 20210160477 A1) teaches: “the controller can segment a depth image and perform a segmentation analysis in which edge sharpness and/or uniformity between segments is evaluated for the depth images,” [0012]. However, while Oh teaches defining sharpness of edges, the edges are not of a boundary or border of an editing region. Oh also does not teach defining the sharpness based on the thickness of the segment.
Nie teaches: “a user may change a slice thickness of one or more two-dimensional slice images, and the display module 310 may re-display the image data according to the information of the adjusted slice thickness,” [0077]. Nie does not teach defining sharpness, smoothness, or width based on the thickness.
Krauter is directed towards a method of reviewing editing operations applied in a document and does not teach the above limitations.
Fisher is cited in order to explain Gaussian smoothing, and therefore does not teach the limitations above either.
Therefore, none of the prior art searched or on the record teaches, suggests, or renders obvious the limitations of claim 10 of the present application.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Kumar et al. (NPL: Mesh based ROI correction interface for organ delineation in radiation oncology planning) corresponds to the Bystrov reference (US 20130135305 A1) cited in this action.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VINCENT ALEXANDER PROVIDENCE whose telephone number is (571)270-5765. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:30-5:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, King Poon can be reached at (571)270-0728. 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.
/VINCENT ALEXANDER PROVIDENCE/Examiner, Art Unit 2617 /KING Y POON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2617
Prosecution Insights