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 Objections
Claims 1, 14, and 15 objected to because of the following informalities: Amended claims 1, 14, and 15 recite: “the anisotropic weighting function restricts editing of another slice relative to the slice comprising the editing plane”. There is no antecedent basis for the “anisotropic weighting function”, although each independent claim does contain antecedent basis for an “anisotropic weighting factor”. The claims should be amended to read “the anisotropic weighting factor restricts editing …”, “an anisotropic weighting function restricts editing …”, or similar.
Appropriate correction is required.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed April 13th 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-20 are pending in the application. A further search was performed to address the material amended in the independent claims.
Response to Arguments
The Examiner appreciates the Applicant’s thorough review of the previous Final action. Applicant's arguments filed April 13th 2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant amended the claim language of claims 1, 14, and 15 to expedite prosecution: “’wherein the 3D image comprises a plurality of slices, the editing plane is comprised in a slice of the plurality of slices, and the anisotropic weighting function restricts editing of another slice relative to the slice comprising the editing plane.’ The cited art does not disclose this element of amended claim 1” (Remarks, Pg. 7).
Upon further consideration, the Examiner found that the amended limitations are taught by previously cited prior art Bystrov (for more details, please see the rejection of Claim 1 below):
wherein the 3D image comprises a plurality of slices (Bystrov: “FIGS. 9A-9C show several slices of the diagnostic image.” [0032]; see Note 1B), the editing plane is comprised in a slice of the plurality of slices (Bystrov: The user picks with the pointer a start point on a selected image slice through the volume and moves it to some end point, Abstract), and the anisotropic weighting function (see Note 1D) restricts editing of another slice relative to the slice comprising the editing plane (Bystrov: the deformation of mesh vertices should so happen that the ROI boundary on the viewed image plane is corrected but the ROI boundary on the adjacent image planes remains intact [0011]; see Note 1C).
Therefore, the Examiner respectfully disagrees that the cited art does not disclose the elements of amended claim 1.
The Applicant argues: “With respect to claim 2, the Office Action relies on Stehle for disclosing "the editing plane is... comprised in a slice of the 3D image." See Office Action, pages 9-10. […] Bystrov also does not disclose this element of amended claim 1.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees, because Bystrov teaches that users may edit the 3D image based on an image slice: “The user picks with the pointer a start point on a selected image slice through the volume and moves it to some end point,” (Abstract).
For at least the above reasons, the Examiner is not convinced that Bystrov in view of Stehle fails to teach the limitations of amended 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, 11, 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 Stehle (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 (see Note 1A) relative to the editing plane (see Note 1E).
wherein the 3D image comprises a plurality of slices (Bystrov: “FIGS. 9A-9C show several slices of the diagnostic image.” [0032]; see Note 1B), the editing plane is comprised in a slice of the plurality of slices (Bystrov: The user picks with the pointer a start point on a selected image slice through the volume and moves it to some end point, Abstract), and the anisotropic weighting function (see Note 1D) restricts editing of another slice relative to the slice comprising the editing plane (Bystrov: the deformation of mesh vertices should so happen that the ROI boundary on the viewed image plane is corrected but the ROI boundary on the adjacent image planes remains intact [0011]; see Note 1C)
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.
Note 1B: Bystrov showcases multiple slices of the same diagnostic image in Figs. 9A-9C and teaches that: “Interactive mesh deformation for in-plane 3D segmentation/delineation for radiation therapy planning done on a slice by slice basis of a region/a volume of interest (VOI, ROI).” (Abstract). Therefore, the Examiner understands that the slices taught by Bystrov are part of a 3D image.
Note 1C: Bystrov teaches in [0011] cited above that a deformation may be restricted relative to adjacent image slices, and further teaches that: “This feature ensures that the displacement of mesh vertices does not affect the ROI contour on adjacent image slices, since the triangular edges of the subdivided triangles do not span across multiple slices.” This would be beneficial to fix an issue Bystrov describes in [0057], where “the user-drawn line 154 is used to correct the segmentation of the region of interest in the image. However, since mesh resolution is limited when compared to the image volume resolution of CT datasets in radiation therapy planning, mesh editing produces undesired results on adjacent image planes as shown in FIGS. 9A-C and 10A-C.”
Note 1D: The Examiner submits that it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize an anisotropic weighting function to restrict editing of another slice, because Bystrov teaches a fuzzy line change (FLC) algorithm that “provides for selective subdivision of a subset of identified mesh triangles […] which is carried out iteratively until the resolution of the selected mesh triangles is less than or equal to the image slice spacing in the viewed image orientation. This feature ensures that the displacement of mesh vertices does not affect the ROI contour on adjacent image slices” [0052]. Given that the fuzzy line change algorithm taught by Bystrov changes based on the distance to the user drawn contour: “a fuzzy line change (FLC) technique used to identify the subset of mesh vertices and snap them to a user-drawn contour is employed. The technique is based on shortest distance and curvature metrics” [0056], the Examiner interprets the FLC algorithm to be an anisotropic weighting function.
Note 1E: In Note 1A, it was shown that the value lambda may be applied in “different spatial directions based on the current viewing direction”. Bystrov also teaches that: “the deformation of mesh vertices should so happen that the ROI boundary on the viewed image plane is corrected” [0011] (emphasis added). The view of the image plane or selected slice by the user necessarily includes a viewing direction relative to the 3D mesh. Therefore, the Examiner understands the restriction to be relative to an editing plane.
Bystrov fails to explicitly teach:
receiving an indication of an adjustment to be applied to a first position on the 3D mesh
Stehle teaches:
receiving an indication of an adjustment to be applied to a first position on the 3D mesh (Stehle: 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 Stehle with Bystrov. Receiving an indication of an adjustment to be applied to a first position on the 3D mesh, as in Stehle, 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 comprises:
a central plane of the slice of the 3D image (Bystrov: the deformation of mesh vertices should so happen that the ROI boundary on the viewed image plane is corrected but the ROI boundary on the adjacent image planes remains intact, [0011]; see Note 2A).
Note 2A: The Examiner understands a “central plane” to be a slice that is between two adjacent slices, for example, slice 420 depicted in Fig. 4 of the present application. Bystrov teaches a viewed image plane that has adjacent slices, and that the viewed image plane may be used for editing, as described in [0011] above. Therefore, the Examiner interprets the viewed image plane to be a central plane.
Regarding claim 3:
Bystrov in view of Stehle 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 image plane taught by Bystrov, and that the current viewing direction was analogous to the first direction. Therefore, because Stehle teaches that the scene camera may be placed based on the normal direction, it would be obvious for the first direction to be a direction normal to the editing plane.
Regarding claim 4:
Bystrov in view of Stehle 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 Stehle 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 Stehle 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 Stehle 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:
the first direction (Bystrov: The parameter r specifies the local and global influence of the transformation, [0003]; Bystrov: 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]; see Note 9A); or
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. The parameter r is defined in terms of λ:
PNG
media_image1.png
30
95
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Equation on Pg. 3 of Bystrov.
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.” That is, the radius parameter that controls how the local region is restricted may be defined based on current viewing direction. Therefore, the Examiner interprets Bystrov to teach that the restricted editing region is restricted relative to the editing region in a direction.
Regarding claim 11:
Bystrov in view of Stehle teaches:
The method as claimed in claim 1 (as shown above), wherein anisotropic weighting factor restricts the adjustment made to the point to zero adjustment if at least one of:
the point lies outside of the slice comprising the editing plane (see Note 11A); or
the point lies in or beyond an editing plane of an adjacent slice (Bystrov: the displacement of mesh vertices does not affect the ROI contour on adjacent image slices, since the triangular edges of the subdivided triangles do not span across multiple slices [0052]).
Note 11A: Bystrov teaches that adjacent image slices may not be affected by a displacement on the viewed image slice, in order to solve the issue where “the user-drawn line 154 is used to correct the segmentation of the region of interest in the image. However, since mesh resolution is limited when compared to the image volume resolution of CT datasets in radiation therapy planning, mesh editing produces undesired results on adjacent image planes as shown in FIGS. 9A-C and 10A-C” [0057].
Regarding claim 13:
Bystrov in view of Stehle 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:
Claim 14 is substantially similar to claim 1, and is therefore rejected for similar reasons. Claim 14 contains the following notable differences:
Claim 14 claims a system instead of a method. {name} teaches a system:
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:
Regarding claim 15:
Claim 15 is substantially similar to claim 1, and is therefore rejected for similar reasons. Claim 15 contains the following notable differences:
Claim 15 claims a non-transitory computer readable medium instead of a method. {name} teaches a non-transitory computer readable medium:
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:
Regarding claim 16:
Claim 16 is substantially similar to claim 2, and is therefore rejected for similar reasons. Claim 16 contains the following notable differences:
Claim 16 claims a non-transitory computer readable medium instead of a method. In the rejection of claim 15, it was shown that Bystrov teaches a non-transitory computer readable medium.
Regarding claim 17:
Claim 17 is substantially similar to claim 3, and is therefore rejected for similar reasons. Claim 17 contains the following notable differences:
Claim 17 claims a non-transitory computer readable medium instead of a method. In the rejection of claim 15, it was shown that Bystrov teaches a non-transitory computer readable medium.
Regarding claim 18:
Claim 18 is substantially similar to claim 4, and is therefore rejected for similar reasons. Claim 18 contains the following notable differences:
Claim 18 claims a non-transitory computer readable medium instead of a method. In the rejection of claim 15, it was shown that Bystrov teaches a non-transitory computer readable medium.
Regarding claim 20:
Claim 20 is substantially similar to claim 8, and is therefore rejected for similar reasons. Claim 20 contains the following notable differences:
Claim 20 claims a non-transitory computer readable medium instead of a method. In the rejection of claim 15, it was shown that Bystrov teaches a non-transitory computer readable medium.
Claims 5 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bystrov (US 20130135305 A1) in view of Stehle (US 20180158252 A1) and Fisher (NPL: Gaussian Smoothing).
Regarding claim 5:
Bystrov in view of Stehle 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_image2.png
65
221
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Equation shown under paragraph [0004] in Bystrov.
Fisher teaches that:
PNG
media_image3.png
141
344
media_image3.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 Stehle because Fisher teaches details of the Gaussian equation utilized by Bystrov.
Regarding claim 19:
Claim 19 is substantially similar to claim 5, and is therefore rejected for similar reasons. Claim 19 contains the following notable differences:
Claim 19 claims a non-transitory computer readable medium instead of a method. In the rejection of claim 15, it was shown that Bystrov teaches a non-transitory computer readable medium.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bystrov (US 20130135305 A1) in view of Stehle (US 20180158252 A1), Fisher (NPL: Gaussian Smoothing), and Nie (US 20190139223 A1).
Regarding claim 6:
Bystrov in view of Stehle and Fisher teaches:
The method as claimed in claim 5 (as shown above),
Bystrov in view of Stehle 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 the 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 the 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 Stehle 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 Stehle and Fisher teachings by enabling the user to edit the 3D mesh while viewing an interior slice of said mesh.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bystrov (US 20130135305 A1) in view of Stehle (US 20180158252 A1) and Groth (US 20200051247 A1).
Regarding claim 12:
Bystrov in view of Stehle teaches:
The method as claimed in claim 1 (as shown above),
Bystrov in view of Stehle fails to explicitly teach:
wherein the plurality of slices are to be edited in succession, and the first direction opposes a direction in which the plurality of slices are to be edited.
Groth teaches:
wherein the plurality of slices are to be edited in succession (Groth: the adjustment is propagated to the neighboring slices [0075]), and the first direction opposes a direction in which the plurality of slices are to be edited (Groth: Considering an example of a sequence of two-dimensional slices through a three-dimensional image, if the user were to select two-dimensional slice number 13 of the sequence as an image in which to adjust a part of the model and the parts of the model lying in neighboring two-dimensional slices have not previously been adjusted, then the adjustment is propagated to the neighboring slices in three-dimensions in both directions (for example, to slice number 13−− and slice number 13++) [0075]; see Note 12A).
Note 12A: In the rejection of claim 3 above, the Examiner interpreted the first direction to be analogous to the current viewing direction. In [0075], Groth teaches that an adjustment made by the user may be propagated to slices 13++ and 13-- in opposing (“both”) directions. At least one direction must be the first direction, as the user performs the adjustment relative to the viewed image plane, as described in Note 1E above.
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 Groth with Bystrov in view of Stehle. Editing the plurality of slices in succession, and the first direction opposes a direction in which the plurality of slices are to be edited, as in Groth, would benefit the Bystrov in view of Stehle teachings by preventing editing errors from propagating to parts of the model the user didn’t intend to edit: “In this way, changes made by the user to the model are only propagated to parts of the model lying in images of the sequence that have not already been adjusted by the user. Thus, parts of the model lying in images of the sequence that have been previously adjusted are fixed (or frozen) in place. This eliminates the need for the user to have to repeatedly check and re-adjust parts of the model that have already previously been adjusted and approved by the user. In this way, the workflow is simpler and more efficient, saving time for the user, and also produces more reliably adjusted models of anatomical structures since errors propagating through images in the sequence are avoided.” (Groth, [0043])
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 Stehle teaches:
The method as claimed in claim 8 (as shown above),
Bystrov in view of Stehle 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.
The Examiner identified potential limitation(s) in the specification that would overcome the prior art rejections under 103 if amended into the independent claims. Note that in such a situation, further search and consideration would be required:
“It will be appreciated that the direction being normal to the editing plane is not the only possible direction in which the editing could be restricted, and the direction could be instead in a direction parallel to an axis of 10 interest, such as an axis of a ventricle in the 3D image. The direction of restriction could be chosen anatomically, e.g. based on the segmentation result” as on Pg. 10, ln. 7-12.
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