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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 02/21/2024 is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1 and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Regarding claims 1 and 8-9:
Claims 1 and 8-9 are directed to idea of itself (abstract idea). The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the following reasons:
Step 1: Claim 1 recites series of acts for acquiring, select, tracking and outputs. Thus, the claim is directed to a processing apparatus and/or method which is one of the statutory categories of the invention.
Step 2A, the claimed acquiring, select, tracking and outputs are directed to abstract idea for the reason that these steps are processes found by the courts to be abstract ideas in that related to comparing known information, and organizing information through mathematical correlations that can be performed mentally abstract such as using comparing new and stored information and using rules to identify options.
Step 2B, the additional limitations left in the claim are “algorithms” and the tracking steps. The claimed algorithms, storage medium and a central unit are merely a device that the judicial exception being applied to. The claimed selecting step is merely an insignificant extras-solution activity to the judicial exception (e.g. data gathering). Treating claim 1 as a whole, the additional limitations do not show inventive concept in applying the judicial exception (e.g. improvements to the algorithms and or the processing apparatuses) or do not provide other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Thus, claim 1 as a whole is not significantly more than the abstract idea itself and is ineligible. Claims 1 and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because every step of the claim can be done by a human with a paper and pencil. As evidence by “acquires a plurality of frame images” by be done by a human grabbing images that have been printed out. Also “sets an analysis portion in a reference frame image among the plurality of frame images” analysis by a human. Further “selects one tracking algorithm from a plurality of tracking algorithms” a human can set themselves a simple algorithm of this is something this is not something etc something that a human can comprehend. And further “tracks the analysis portion” and then “output the tracking” can all be done by a human looking at the images and putting the results to paper. The “image processing apparatus comprising a hardware processor” are all in the preamble and don’t hold patentable weight unless referred back to the body of the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, and 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Verstege (US 2021/0174514).
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.”).
As per claim 2, Verstege 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 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 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 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).
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 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Verstege (US 2021/0174514) in view of Lu (US 2023/0252649).
As per claim 4, Verstege teaches, the image processing apparatus according to claim 1.
Verstege 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 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 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 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
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/