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 .
Priority
Priority is acknowledged from Provisional application 63/446,378 with a filing date of 02/17/2023.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (“IDS”) filed on 10/08/2025 was reviewed and the listed references were noted.
Drawings
The 3-page drawings have been considered and placed on record in the file.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 20 recites “One or more storage media having instructions stored thereon that when executed by a processing system direct the processing system to at least…” wherein Paragraph 38 of the specification recites “As used herein “storage media” do not consist of transitory, propagating waves. Instead, “storage media” refers to non-transitory media.” Therefore, the “One or more storage media” recited in claim 20 is interpreted to be limited to only non-transitory storage media.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-3, 5, 10-13, 15, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Desinger et al. (US 20220192759 A1) in view of Krücker et al. ("3D spatial compounding of ultrasound images using image-based nonrigid registration." Ultrasound in medicine & biology 26.9 (2000): 1475-1488) and Izatt et al. (US 20200340798 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Desinger teaches "A method comprising: receiving a plurality of images of an object, each image of the plurality of images having more than three dimensions"; (Desinger, Para. 6, teaches obtaining four-dimensional images of a patient, i.e., receiving a plurality of images of an object being the patient wherein the images have more than three dimensions);
"performing multi-dimensional registration of the plurality of images to generate a multi-dimensional dataspace"; (Desinger, Para. 6, teaches registering the patient model to the patient consisting of the four-dimensional images of the patient wherein registration refers to obtaining the spatial correlation between position and orientation of a patient in real space and the model defined in terms of coordinates in the coordinate system of the respective four-dimensional images used for generating the model, i.e., performing multi-dimensional registration of the images to generate a multi-dimensional dataspace being the registration of 4D images to obtain the spatial correlation between position and orientation).
However, Desinger does not explicitly teach "reducing dimensionality of the multi-dimensional dataspace to create an enhanced resolution and contrast image of a 3D space of the object using the plurality of images as registered in the multi-dimensional dataspace; and displaying the enhanced resolution and contrast image”.
In an analogous field of endeavor, Krucker teaches "reducing dimensionality of the multi-dimensional dataspace to create an enhanced resolution and contrast image of a 3D space of the object using the plurality of images as registered in the multi-dimensional dataspace"; (Krucker, Abstract, teaches volumetric image registration to enable high spatial resolution in 3D spatial compounding being the summation of images from multiple views wherein the volume of interest was scanned at five different angles in which pairs of separate views were registered by an automatic procedure based on a mutual information metric wherein the compounded images displayed the expected reduction in speckle noise and increase in contrast-to-noise ratio as well as better delineation of connective tissues and reduced shadowing, i.e., reduce dimensionality of the multi-dimensional dataspace being the 3D spatial compounding of the set of 3D images taken at different angles for a multidimensional dataspace comprising 3D space and orientation in order to create an enhance resolution and contrast of the 3D space of the object being the connective tissues using the images as registered).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Desinger by including the reducing of dimensionality of the dataspace to enhance resolution and contrast of the 3D space of the object using registered images in the dataspace taught by Krucker. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine the references since it enables high spatial resolution and reduces noise and increases CNR (Krucker, Abstract, teaches the motivation of combination to be to enable high spatial resolution and reduce noise and increase in contrast-to-noise-ratio).
However, the combination of references of Desinger in view of Krucker does not explicitly teach "and displaying the enhanced resolution and contrast image".
In an analogous field of endeavor, Izatt teaches "and displaying the enhanced resolution and contrast image"; (Izatt, Abstract and Para. 6, teaches displaying an image of the object based on the enhanced resolution image wherein the image also provides improved contrast).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Desinger and Krucker by including the display of the enhanced image taught by Izatt. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine the references since it enhances the resolution (Izatt, Para. 3, teaches the motivation of combination to be to enhance resolution).
Thus, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date.
Regarding Claim 2, the combination of references of Desinger in view of Krucker and Izatt teaches "The method of claim 1, wherein reducing the dimensionality of the multi-dimensional dataspace to create the enhanced resolution and contrast image of the 3D space of the object comprises utilizing at least one of variance, high-order statistics, entropy, principal component analysis, t-distributed stochastic neighborhood embedding, and neural networks using the plurality of images as registered in the multi-dimensional dataspace"; (Krucker, FIG. 4 and Materials and Methods - Registration, teaches the registration procedure employs mutual information to measure relative alignment wherein mutual information is defined as the entropy and joint entropy of the data sets wherein image volumes are aligned using registration and then compounded and displayed in original orientation, i.e., reducing dimensionality of the dataspace comprises utilizing at least entropy using the images as registered in the dataspace).
The proposed combination as well as the motivation for combining the Desinger in view of Krucker and Izatt references presented in the rejection of Claim 1, applies to claim 2. Thus, the method recited in claim 2 is met by Desinger in view of Krucker and Izatt.
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of references of Desinger in view of Krucker and Izatt teaches "The method of claim 2, wherein the at least one of the variance, high-order statistics, entropy, principal component analysis, t-distributed stochastic neighborhood embedding, and neural networks are determined by applying an iterative optimization algorithm to the plurality of images as registered in the multi-dimensional dataspace"; (Krucker, FIG. 4 and Materials and Methods - Registration, teaches the registration procedure employs mutual information to measure relative alignment wherein mutual information is defined as the entropy and joint entropy of the data sets wherein the registration optimization works by iteratively maximizing the mutual information wherein image volumes are aligned using registration and then compounded and displayed in original orientation, i.e., determine entropy by iterative optimization on the images as registered in the dataspace by the iteratively maximizing the mutual information defined by the entropy).
The proposed combination as well as the motivation for combining the Desinger in view of Krucker and Izatt references presented in the rejection of Claim 1, applies to claim 3. Thus, the method recited in claim 3 is met by Desinger in view of Krucker and Izatt.
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of references of Desinger in view of Krucker and Izatt teaches "The method of claim 1, wherein the plurality of images of the object are one of optical coherence tomography B-scans and OCT volumes"; (Izatt, Claim 2, teaches the images are one of optical coherence tomography B-scans and OCT volumes).
The proposed combination as well as the motivation for combining the Desinger in view of Krucker and Izatt references presented in the rejection of Claim 1, applies to claim 5. Thus, the method recited in claim 5 is met by Desinger in view of Krucker and Izatt.
Claim 10 recites a system with elements corresponding to the steps recited in Claim 1. Therefore, the recited elements of this claim are mapped to the proposed combination in the same manner as the corresponding steps in its corresponding method claim. Additionally, the rationale and motivation to combine the Desinger in view of Krucker and Izatt references, presented in rejection of Claim 1, apply to this claim. Finally, the combination of the Desinger in view of Krucker and Izatt references discloses a processing system and storage system (for example, see Izatt, Paragraph 35).
Claim 11 recites a system with elements corresponding to the steps recited in Claim 2. Therefore, the recited elements of this claim are mapped to the proposed combination in the same manner as the corresponding steps in its corresponding method claim. Additionally, the rationale and motivation to combine the Desinger in view of Krucker and Izatt references, presented in rejection of Claim 1, apply to this claim. Finally, the combination of the Desinger in view of Krucker and Izatt references discloses a processing system and storage system (for example, see Izatt, Paragraph 35).
Claim 12 recites a system with elements corresponding to the steps recited in Claim 3. Therefore, the recited elements of this claim are mapped to the proposed combination in the same manner as the corresponding steps in its corresponding method claim. Additionally, the rationale and motivation to combine the Desinger in view of Krucker and Izatt references, presented in rejection of Claim 1, apply to this claim. Finally, the combination of the Desinger in view of Krucker and Izatt references discloses a processing system and storage system (for example, see Izatt, Paragraph 35).
Regarding Claim 13, the combination of references of Desinger in view of Krucker and Izatt teaches "The system of claim 10, further comprising: an imaging device, wherein the imaging device acquires the plurality of images of the object taken at different angles and sends the plurality of images of the object taken at different angles to the storage system"; (Izatt, Paras. 110-111 and Claim 20, teaches a scanning device configured to acquire a plurality of cross-sectional images of an object at different angles wherein the computer readable storage medium which stores instructions to carry out the method includes a storage device, i.e., imaging device acquires images of the object at different angles and sends the images to the storage system).
The proposed combination as well as the motivation for combining the Desinger in view of Krucker and Izatt references presented in the rejection of Claim 1, applies to claim 13. Thus, the method recited in claim 13 is met by Desinger in view of Krucker and Izatt.
Claim 15 recites a system with elements corresponding to the steps recited in Claim 5. Therefore, the recited elements of this claim are mapped to the proposed combination in the same manner as the corresponding steps in its corresponding method claim. Additionally, the rationale and motivation to combine the Desinger in view of Krucker and Izatt references, presented in rejection of Claim 1, apply to this claim. Finally, the combination of the Desinger in view of Krucker and Izatt references discloses a processing system and storage system (for example, see Izatt, Paragraph 35).
Claim 20 recites a computer-readable storage medium storing a program with instructions corresponding to the steps recited in Claim 1. Therefore, the recited programming instructions of this claim are mapped to the proposed combination in the same manner as the corresponding steps in its corresponding method claim. Additionally, the rationale and motivation to combine the Desinger in view of Krucker and Izatt references, presented in rejection of Claim 1, apply to this claim. Finally, the combination of the Desinger in view of Krucker and Izatt references discloses a computer readable storage medium (for example, see Izatt, Paragraph 35).
Claims 4 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Desinger in view of Krücker, Izatt, and Zhao et al. ("Angular compounding for speckle reduction in optical coherence tomography using geometric image registration algorithm and digital focusing." Scientific Reports 10.1 (2020): 1893).
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of references of Desinger in view of Krucker and Izatt does not explicitly teach "The method of claim 1, further comprising taking a Fourier transform of the plurality of registered images prior to reducing the dimensionality of the multi-dimensional dataspace".
In an analogous field of endeavor, Zhao teaches "The method of claim 1, further comprising taking a Fourier transform of the plurality of registered images prior to reducing the dimensionality of the multi-dimensional dataspace"; (Zhao, Method - Data process flow, teaches converting the spectral interferences to spatial information via the Fourier transform before angular compounding of the images to combine them to be one fused image, i.e., taking a Fourier transform of the images prior to reducing the dimensionality reduction of the multi-dimensional space being the compounding of the images).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Desinger, Krucker, and Izatt wherein the images are registered images by including the taking of the Fourier transform of the images prior to reducing the dimensionality taught by Zhao. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine the references since it suppresses noise and enhances resolution (Zhao, Abstract, teaches the motivation of combination to be to suppress speckle noise, enhance resolution and contrast, and reveal fine structures).
Thus, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date.
Claim 14 recites a system with elements corresponding to the steps recited in Claim 4. Therefore, the recited elements of this claim are mapped to the proposed combination in the same manner as the corresponding steps in its corresponding method claim. Additionally, the rationale and motivation to combine the Desinger in view of Krucker, Izatt, and Zhao references, presented in rejection of Claim 4, apply to this claim. Finally, the combination of the Desinger in view of Krucker, Izatt, and Zhao references discloses a processing system and storage system (for example, see Izatt, Paragraph 35).
Claims 6-8 and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Desinger in view of Krücker, Izatt, and Said (US 20130188068 A1).
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of references of Desinger in view of Krucker and Izatt does not explicitly teach "The method of claim 1, wherein the multi-dimensional dataspace is at least a five-dimensional dataspace".
In an analogous field of endeavor, Said teaches "The method of claim 1, wherein the multi-dimensional dataspace is at least a five-dimensional dataspace"; (Said, Para. 20, teaches characterizing an image of a scene from many different viewing locations at any viewing angle and at any point in time with a plenoptic function parameterized as a five-dimensional function, i.e., multi-dimensional dataspace is at least a five-dimensional dataspace).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Desinger, Krucker, and Izatt by including the dataspace being at least a five-dimensional dataspace taught by Said. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine the references since it decreases cost of rendering (Said, Paras. 4-5, teaches the motivation of combination to be to decrease cost of rendering images acquired using camera arrays).
Thus, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date.
Regarding Claim 7, the combination of references of Desinger in view of Krucker, Izatt, and Said teaches "The method of claim 6, wherein the at least five-dimensional dataspace comprises space and angular dimensions"; (Said, Para. 20, teaches characterizing an image of a scene from many different viewing locations at any viewing angle and at any point in time with a plenoptic function parameterized as a five-dimensional function with three Cartesian coordinates x, y, and z and two spherical coordinate angles, i.e., multi-dimensional dataspace is at least a five-dimensional dataspace comprising space and angular dimensions).
The proposed combination as well as the motivation for combining the Desinger in view of Krucker, Izatt, and Said references presented in the rejection of Claim 6, applies to claim 7. Thus, the method recited in claim 7 is met by Desinger in view of Krucker, Izatt, and Said.
Regarding Claim 8, the combination of references of Desinger in view of Krucker, Izatt, and Said teaches "The method of claim 7, wherein the at least five-dimensional dataspace further comprises time and wavelength dimensions"; (Said, Para. 20, teaches characterizing an image of a scene from many different viewing locations at any viewing angle and at any point in time with a plenoptic function parameterized as a five-dimensional function with three Cartesian coordinates x, y, and z and two spherical coordinate angles wherein the plenoptic function can also be parameterized by additional dimensions including time and wavelength, i.e., multi-dimensional dataspace is at least a five-dimensional dataspace comprising time and wavelength dimensions).
The proposed combination as well as the motivation for combining the Desinger in view of Krucker, Izatt, and Said references presented in the rejection of Claim 6, applies to claim 8. Thus, the method recited in claim 8 is met by Desinger in view of Krucker, Izatt, and Said.
Claim 16 recites a system with elements corresponding to the steps recited in Claim 6. Therefore, the recited elements of this claim are mapped to the proposed combination in the same manner as the corresponding steps in its corresponding method claim. Additionally, the rationale and motivation to combine the Desinger in view of Krucker, Izatt, and Said references, presented in rejection of Claim 6, apply to this claim. Finally, the combination of the Desinger in view of Krucker, Izatt, and Said references discloses a processing system and storage system (for example, see Izatt, Paragraph 35).
Claim 17 recites a system with elements corresponding to the steps recited in Claim 7. Therefore, the recited elements of this claim are mapped to the proposed combination in the same manner as the corresponding steps in its corresponding method claim. Additionally, the rationale and motivation to combine the Desinger in view of Krucker, Izatt, and Said references, presented in rejection of Claim 6, apply to this claim. Finally, the combination of the Desinger in view of Krucker, Izatt, and Said references discloses a processing system and storage system (for example, see Izatt, Paragraph 35).
Claim 18 recites a system with elements corresponding to the steps recited in Claim 8. Therefore, the recited elements of this claim are mapped to the proposed combination in the same manner as the corresponding steps in its corresponding method claim. Additionally, the rationale and motivation to combine the Desinger in view of Krucker, Izatt, and Said references, presented in rejection of Claim 6, apply to this claim. Finally, the combination of the Desinger in view of Krucker, Izatt, and Said references discloses a processing system and storage system (for example, see Izatt, Paragraph 35).
Claims 9 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Desinger in view of Krücker, Izatt, and Ferrara et al. (US 20240225601 A1).
Regarding Claim 9, the combination of references of Desinger in view of Krucker and Izatt does not explicitly teach "The method of claim 1, wherein reducing the dimensionality of the multi-dimensional dataspace to create the enhanced resolution and contrast image of the 3D space of the object comprises reducing the dimensionality of the multi-dimensional dataspace to create a plurality of enhanced resolution and contrast images of the 3D space of the object, wherein the plurality of enhanced resolution and contrast images of the 3D space of the object comprises the enhanced resolution and contrast image of the 3D space of the object".
In an analogous field of endeavor, Ferrara teaches "The method of claim 1, wherein reducing the dimensionality of the multi-dimensional dataspace to create the enhanced resolution and contrast image of the 3D space of the object comprises reducing the dimensionality of the multi-dimensional dataspace to create a plurality of enhanced resolution and contrast images of the 3D space of the object, wherein the plurality of enhanced resolution and contrast images of the 3D space of the object comprises the enhanced resolution and contrast image of the 3D space of the object"; (Ferrara, FIGS. 5A-5B and Paras. 57-58, 64, and 67, teaches a combination of coherent and non-coherent spatial compounding used to optimize the balance between resolution and contrast in varying imaging conditions wherein multiple planewaves are summed to create high quality spatial compounded images wherein complete slices are acquired through the imaged subjects which are then combined to yield highly detailed image volumes wherein the process repeats successively with images slices being acquired at each vertical step and the entire volume being reconstructed after all the slices have been acquired, i.e., reducing the dimensionality of the dataspace being the non-coherent spatial compounding of image slices to create a plurality of enhanced resolution and contrast images of the 3D space of the object wherein the plurality of the enhanced images of the 3D space of the object comprises the enhanced resolution and contrast image of the 3D space of the object).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Desinger, Krucker, and Izatt by including the reducing of the dimensionality of the database creating a plurality of enhanced resolution and contrast images of a 3D space for an object that include the enhanced image of the 3D space of the object taught by Ferrara. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine the references since it offers a low cost imaging system with improved resolution accuracy (Ferrara, Para. 5, teaches the motivation of combination to be have a low cost and versatile imaging system with greater resolution accuracy).
Thus, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date.
Claim 19 recites a system with elements corresponding to the steps recited in Claim 9. Therefore, the recited elements of this claim are mapped to the proposed combination in the same manner as the corresponding steps in its corresponding method claim. Additionally, the rationale and motivation to combine the Desinger in view of Krucker, Izatt, and Ferrara references, presented in rejection of Claim 9, apply to this claim. Finally, the combination of the Desinger in view of Krucker, Izatt, and Ferrara references discloses a processing system and storage system (for example, see Izatt, Paragraph 35).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW STEVEN BUDISALICH whose telephone number is (703)756-5568. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30am-5:00pm EST.
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, Amandeep Saini can be reached on (571) 272-3382. 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.
/ANDREW S BUDISALICH/Examiner, Art Unit 2662
/AMANDEEP SAINI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2662