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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/23/2026 have been fully considered and they are persuasive. However, a newly found reference Bakalo (US 2000/0096853) teaches the amendment portions of the claimed limitations as well as the new claims. The 101 rejection has now been overcome.
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 1-3 and 6-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Verstege (US 2021/0174514) in view of Bakalo (US 2000/0096853).
As per claim 1, Verstege teaches, an image processing apparatus, method and a non-transitory computer readable recording medium comprising a hardware processor that: acquires a plurality of frame images constituting a radiographed dynamic image of a subject (Verstege, ¶ [0082] “At step 200, static volume data is acquired using a first imaging technique, such as MRI or CT imaging.” Both MRI or CT imaging represent radiographed image, and ¶ [0082] “At step 206, initial dynamic volume data is acquired using a second imaging technique different to the first imaging technique.” Dynamic volume data is then dynamic image of a subject);
sets an analysis portion in a reference frame image among the plurality of frame images (Verstege, ¶[0082] “the dynamic segmentation which is determined to most closely correspond to the static segmentation is stored in the memory as a segmentation” represents a reference frame among the plurality of frames);
selects one tracking algorithm from a plurality of tracking algorithms (Verstege, ¶[0082] “This comparison may be performed using a registration algorithm, for example a point-based registration algorithm that determines the proximity of the vertex locations of each one of the dynamic segmentations to the vertex locations of the static segmentation.” This represents selecting one tracking algorithm as it is being used and other algorithms are there to be used);
tracks the analysis portion in a time direction on a basis of the one tracking algorithm (Verstege, ¶ [0082] “At step 218, the subsequent dynamic volume data is segmented to generate at least one subsequent dynamic segmentation. At step 220, a difference between the reference segmentation and the subsequent dynamic segmentation is determined.” This represents tracks analysis the time direction as it is subsequent); and outputs a tracking result of the tracking (Verstege, ¶ [0082] “At step 224, the updated annotation is display together with the subsequent dynamic volume data. The subsequent dynamic volume data may be displayed in the form of the subsequent dynamic segmentation.”).
Verstege doesn’t clearly teach, displaying on the display the dynamic image with tracking lines of the analysis portion superimposed on the dynamic image.
However, Bakalo teaches, displaying on the display the dynamic image (Bakalo, ¶[0045] “The imaging module 703 may include one or more image capturing devices, such as one or more cameras that determine/capture image data (e.g., static/still images, dynamic/interactive images, video, etc.). The imaging module 703 may capture image data that provides a real-time and/or real-world representation of a user (e.g., a patient, a subject, etc.), such as a real-time and/or real-world representation of the user and/or a portion (e.g., head, torso, etc.) of the user's body.” And ¶[0044] “The interface module 702 may request and/or query various files from a local source and/or a remote source, such as the patient support module 706. The interface module 702 may include one or more displays (e.g., monitors, liquid crystal displays, organic light-emitting diode displays, active-matrix organic light-emitting diode displays, stereo displays, etc.) for displaying” represents the display and that being dynamic images) with tracking lines of the analysis portion superimposed on the dynamic image ( Bakalo, ¶[0044] “image data depicting optimized and/or recommended areas for placement of one or more transducer arrays on the surface (skin) of the user, superimposed image data, and/or the like.” And this represents tracking lines portion superimposed on the dynamic image and also see ¶[0045] “The image processing module 705 may use one or more object identification and/or tracking algorithms to determine/detect the locations of the one or more landmarks and the one or more skin surface conditions.” Tracking algorithms would also represent the tracking lines, see fig.4D as well).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to combine the teachings of Bakalo with those of Verstege to be able to display superimposed images with tracking lines.
The motivation would have been to improve recognition as taught by Bakalo in ¶[004].
As per claim 2, Verstege in view of Bakalo teaches, the image processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the hardware processor selects the one tracking algorithm from the plurality of tracking algorithms on a basis of selection by a user (Verstege, ¶[0085] “The computing unit can be adapted to operate automatically and/or to execute the orders of a user.” This represents selection by a user).
As per claim 3, Verstege in view of Bakalo teaches, the image processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the hardware processor selects the one tracking algorithm from the plurality of tracking algorithms on a basis of information on the analysis portion (Verstege, ¶[0013] “a probe detection algorithm” and ¶[0014] “where a third imaging technique is utilized and an additional registration algorithm as set out above is used to combine the at least one annotation with the third imaging technique” this would represent selecting from multiple algorithms, and it is on the basis of information needed or type thereof).
As per claim 6, Verstege in view of Bakalo teaches, the image processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the hardware processor selects a tracking algorithm based on optical flow as the one tracking algorithm in a case where a corner of an edge of the subject is set as the analysis portion (Verstege, fig.3 showing corner of an edge being analyzed, and ¶[0088] “A computer program may be stored and/or distributed on a suitable medium, such as an optical storage medium” would then have optical flows as there are no further details in the claim language).
As per claim 7, Verstege in view of Bakalo teaches, the image processing apparatus according to claim 1, further comprising: a display that displays the tracking result (Verstege, ¶[009] “a display and an input interface configured to receive image data from a patient and transmit the image data to the processor module.” Represents a display-to-display results).
As per claim 10, Verstege in view of Bakalo teaches, the image processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the hardware processor selects the one tracking algorithm from the plurality of tracking algorithms based on whether the analysis portion is an edge portion of the subject (Bakalo, fig.4D “FIG. 4D shows the plurality of points 431 after they have been registered to the surface 432. Registration may be performed, for example, using an iterative closest point algorithm and/or the like.” This represents plurality of tracking algorithms based on whether the analysis portion is an edge portion of the subject, as this is a tracking algorithm and can be the like as well).
As per claim 11, Verstege in view of Bakalo teaches, the image processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the hardware processor selects the one tracking algorithm based on a signal to noise ratio (Bakalo, ¶[0045] “The image processing module 705 may use one or more object identification and/or tracking algorithms to determine/detect the locations of the one or more landmarks and the one or more skin surface conditions.” This would be according to a signal to noise ratio, since there is a nice border in fig.4 that means the algorithm considers signal to noise ratio ).
As per claim 12, Verstege in view of Bakalo teaches, the image processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the hardware processor selects the one tracking algorithm based on a shape of the analysis portion (Bakalo, ¶[0041] “FIG. 5D depict a visual notification of adjusting the size or shape of the transducer array that may be sent to a user device for transducer array placement and skin surface condition avoidance. “ this would be the one tracking algorithm based on a shape of the analysis portion since there is an adjusting the size or shape of the transducer array then a different algorithm would then have to get used therefore changing the algorithm).
As per claim 13, Verstege in view of Bakalo teaches, the image processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the hardware processor selects the one tracking algorithm based on information on the image including at least one of a site, a subject, a motion of the subject, and whether the analysis portion includes a structure (Bakalo, fig.4C-4D the algorithm would get selected according to the particular subject as seen).
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Verstege (US 2021/0174514) in view of Bakalo (US 2000/0096853) and Lu (US 2023/0252649).
As per claim 4, Verstege in view of Bakalo teaches, the image processing apparatus according to claim 1.
Verstege in view of Bakalo does not clearly teach, however, Lu teaches, wherein the hardware processor selects spatial reliability tracking (CSRT) as the one tracking algorithm in a case where a frame rate of the plurality of frame images is equal to or less than 7.5 fps or in a case where frame-out occurs in one of the plurality of frame images (Lu, ¶[0211] “In terms of detection speed, the CSRT is generally slower than the KCF. Therefore, selecting the CSRT versus the KCF is a matter of balancing performance (e.g., detection accuracy/confidence) against processing speed.” Represents selecting CSRT and ¶ [0130] “for near-real-time applications, the frame rates can be in the range, for example, from 5 to 10 frames per second (or any other target/desired frame rate range).” This would have the range of equal or less than 7.5 fps as the range of 5-10 FPS would include equal or less than this).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to combine the teachings of Verstege in view of Bakalo with Lu’s ability to use CSRT and to have the frames be 7.5 fps or lower.
The motivation would have been to improve accuracy versus speed as taught by Lu in ¶[0211] “CSRT versus the KCF is a matter of balancing performance (e.g., detection accuracy/confidence)”.
As per claim 5, Verstege in view of Bakalo teaches the image processing apparatus according to claim 1.
Verstege doesn’t clearly teach, however Lu teaches, wherein the hardware processor selects Kernelized correlation filter (KCF) as the one tracking algorithm in a case where a number of frames of the plurality of frame images is equal to or larger than 200 (Lu, ¶[0211] “Kernelized Correlation Filters (KCF), and/or equivalent” This would represents selecting or having the options for speed of KCF. And ¶[059] “greater than 10 FPS for real time” would equal larger than 200 fps as the Average Performance: KCF generally achieves around 170–300+ FPS on standard CPUs ).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to combine the teachings of Verstege in view of Bakalo with Lu’s ability to use KFC by having the option of knowing speed versus quality.
The motivation would have been to speed up the system over quality as taught by Lu in ¶ [0211].
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 SANTIAGO GARCIA whose telephone number is (571)270-5182. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:30am-5:30pm.
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, Chineyere Wills-Burns can be reached at (571) 272-9752. 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.
/SANTIAGO GARCIA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2673
/SG/
Prosecution Insights