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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of invention I in the reply filed on 7/23/26 is acknowledged.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5, 9, 11-15, 20, 21, and 23-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication 2007/0253617 A1 (hereinafter Arata).
Regarding claim 1, the limitations “A grid model generation method implemented on a machine including one or more processing devices and one or more storage devices, comprising: obtaining a three-dimensional (3D) contour point cloud related to a target organ; determining a plurality of two-dimensional (2D) contour point clouds based on the three-dimensional contour point cloud” are taught by Arata (Arata, e.g. abstract, paragraphs 39-88, describes a system for reconstructing the surface shape of an object having contour lines. Arata, e.g. paragraphs 39, 40, 42, teaches that the input is a 3D scan of a patient’s body part, including organs, intestines, bones, etc., which comprises a set of 3D surface contour points of the target body part, where each 3D surface point belongs to a contour on one of a plurality of parallel 2D slices, i.e. as claimed, a 3D contour point cloud is obtained related to a target organ, and a plurality of 2D contour point clouds are determined based on the 3D contour point cloud, i.e. Arata’s parallel slices comprising contours each comprise a 2D contour point cloud that is determined from the 3D contour point cloud. Finally, Arata, e.g. paragraph 41, describes the computing device used to implement the system, a machine comprising at least one processor and at least one storage device, wherein with respect to similar independent claims 11 and 20, includes non-transitory storage, and executes a program stored therein, e.g. Arata’s claims 23-44 are directed to an embodiment in which the computer executes stored instructions to perform the processing.)
The limitations “generating a plurality of grid sections between two adjacent two-dimensional contour point clouds of the plurality of two-dimensional contour point clouds; and creating a virtual target organ by generating, based on the plurality of grid sections, a grid model” are taught by Arata (Arata, e.g. paragraphs 43-87, describes three embodiments for generating triangular grid sections between adjacent 2D contours in order to generate a complete surface mesh model of the target organ, i.e. the claimed virtual target organ created by generating a grid model based on the plurality of grid sections. It is noted that, in addition to the triangles/grid sections generated between adjacent contours, Arata, e.g. paragraph 87, also teaches that the model may be closed at the top and bottom contours by generating additional triangles using a centroid point.)
Regarding claim 2, the limitation “wherein the plurality of grid sections include a triangular section or a quadrangular section” is taught by Arata (As noted in the claim 1 rejection above, Arata, e.g. paragraphs 43-87, describes three embodiments for generating triangular grid sections between adjacent 2D contours in order to generate a complete surface mesh model of the target organ, i.e. the plurality of grid sections include triangular sections.)
Regarding claim 3, the limitations “wherein the plurality of grid sections include triangular sections; and the generating a plurality of grid sections between two adjacent two-dimensional contour point clouds of the plurality of two-dimensional contour point clouds includes: determining, based on the two adjacent two-dimensional contour point clouds, a first two-dimensional contour point cloud and a second two-dimensional contour point cloud each of which includes a plurality of contour points; determining a plurality of first contour edges based on two adjacent contour points of the plurality of contour points in the first two-dimensional contour point cloud; for each of the plurality of first contour edges, determining a first contour point in the plurality of contour points of the second two-dimensional contour point cloud; generating a plurality of first triangular sections based on the first contour points and the first contour edges” are taught by Arata (As noted in the claim 1 rejection above, Arata, e.g. paragraphs 43-87, describes three embodiments for generating triangular grid sections between adjacent 2D contours in order to generate a complete surface mesh model of the target organ, i.e. as claimed, the plurality of grid sections include triangular sections, wherein both the shortest distance and closest orientation schemes designate a contour1 and a contour2, i.e. the claimed determining first and second 2D contour point clouds. Arata, e.g. paragraphs 44-57, 61-75, describes the two triangulation schemes, which evaluate pairs of closest distance/orientation points from both contours to repetitively determine whether to generate a triangle patch using a contour1 contour edge and a contour2 contour point or a contour1 contour point and a contour2 contour edge, and then advancing to the next contour point on the contour containing the contour edge of the generated triangle patch, until one of the contours runs out of contour points. That is, as claimed, Arata’s triangulation schemes generate a plurality of first triangular sections based on first contour edges in the first 2D contour point cloud and corresponding first contour points in the second 2D contour point cloud.)
The limitations “determining a plurality of reconstructed contour points in the plurality of contour points of the second two-dimensional contour point cloud; determining a second contour edge based on two adjacent reconstructed contour points in the plurality of reconstructed contour points; determining a second contour point in the plurality of first contour points of the first two-dimensional contour point cloud corresponding to the second contour edge; and generating a second triangular section based on the second contour point and the second contour edge” are taught by Arata (As noted above, Arata, e.g. paragraphs 44-57, 61-75, describes the two triangulation schemes, which evaluate pairs of closest distance/orientation points from both contours to repetitively determine whether to generate a triangle patch using a contour1 contour edge and a contour2 contour point or a contour1 contour point and a contour2 contour edge, and then advancing to the next contour point on the contour containing the contour edge of the generated triangle patch, until one of the contours runs out of contour points. In addition to the claimed plurality of first triangular sections as discussed above, Arata’s triangulation schemes also generate a plurality of second triangular sections based on the contour edges in the second 2D contour point cloud and corresponding contour points of the first 2D contour point cloud, wherein the second 2D contour point cloud contour edges used to generate the plurality of second triangular sections will be defined between two adjacent points of the claimed first contour points in the second 2D point cloud used to define the first triangular sections, i.e. as in figure 5, the triangles are generated such that every edge in both contours is the base of a triangle.)
Regarding claim 4, the limitation “wherein the first contour point is a contour point in the second two-dimensional contour point cloud closest to the corresponding first contour edge” is taught by Arata (Arata, e.g. paragraphs 43-57, teaches a first triangulation scheme wherein the points selected for generating each triangular section based on a shortest distance between contour points, i.e. the two closest points on each contour are initially determined for generating a first triangle as in paragraphs 45-50, followed by generating additional triangles by repeatedly selecting the contour point and contour edge which are closest to each other.)
The limitation “the second contour point is a common vertex to two first triangular sections respectively including the two adjacent reconstructed contour points based on which the second contour edge is determined” is taught by Arata (As discussed in the claim 3 rejection above, Arata’s triangulation schemes also generate a plurality of second triangular sections based on the contour edges in the second 2D contour point cloud and corresponding contour points of the first 2D contour point cloud, wherein the second 2D contour point cloud contour edges used to generate the plurality of second triangular sections will be defined between two adjacent points of the claimed first contour points in the second 2D point cloud used to define the first triangular sections, i.e. as in figure 5, the triangles are generated such that every edge in both contours is the base of a triangle. That is, as claimed, the second contour points will be common to two first triangular sections respectively including the two adjacent reconstructed contour points having the second contour edge therebetween.)
Regarding claim 5, the limitation “wherein a count of the plurality of contour points in the first two-dimensional contour point cloud is greater than a count of the plurality of contour points in the second two-dimensional point cloud” is taught by Arata (Arata, e.g. paragraphs 55, 72, teaches that the triangulation schemes continue generating additional triangles using the last contour point of the first contour to run out of contour points, i.e. in at least some instances the first contour will have more contour points and the second contour will run out first, e.g. in the example of figure 15, where the contours are shown traveling in a relatively vertical direction, regardless of whether the right or left direction is designated top/bottom, there are pairs of adjacent contours having different numbers of points such that for at least some of the pairs of adjacent contours, the first 2D contour will have a greater number of points.)
Regarding claim 9, the limitation “wherein the grid model is configured to represent a virtual blood vessel” is taught by Arata (Arata, e.g. paragraph 39, indicates that the system can be used to construct models of other parts of the body such as organs, intestines, or muscles, i.e. one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that blood vessels are one type of organ which can be modeled by Arata’s system.)
Regarding claims 11 and 20, the limitations are similar to those treated in the above rejection(s) and are met by the references as discussed in claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 12, the limitations are similar to those treated in the above rejection(s) and are met by the references as discussed in claim 2 above.
Regarding claim 13, the limitations are similar to those treated in the above rejection(s) and are met by the references as discussed in claim 3 above.
Regarding claim 14, the limitations are similar to those treated in the above rejection(s) and are met by the references as discussed in claim 4 above.
Regarding claim 15, the limitations are similar to those treated in the above rejection(s) and are met by the references as discussed in claim 5 above.
Regarding claim 21, the limitations are similar to those treated in the above rejection(s) and are met by the references as discussed in claim 3 above, i.e. although claim 3 recites the generation of triangular sections in more detail, claim 3, like claim 21, requires generating triangular sections by connecting sets of two contour points from a one contour to a corresponding point in the other contour.
Regarding claim 23, the limitation “wherein any two of the plurality of grid sections do not overlap” is taught by Amata (Amata does not teach that any of the triangles/grid sections overlap, i.e. although the generated surface model covers the entire surface, the triangles are generated in a continuous but non-overlapping manner, as shown visually in figures 5, 9, and 15. It is also noted that the broadest reasonable interpretation of this claim does not exclude pluralities of grid sections which do overlap, i.e. the claim requires that there are at least two grid sections which does not overlap, it does not require that there no overlapping grid sections at all.)
Regarding claim 24, the limitations “wherein the generating of a plurality of grid sections between two adjacent two-dimensional contour point clouds of the plurality of two-dimensional contour point cloud includes: determining a candidate contour point in the second two-dimensional contour point cloud, the candidate contour point being a contour point in the second two-dimensional contour point cloud that is not involved in generation of the plurality of first triangular sections; determining a third contour point in the first two-dimensional contour point cloud based on two contour points in the second two-dimensional contour point cloud adjacent to the candidate contour point, the third contour point being a common vertex of two first triangular sections including the two contour points; and generating a third triangular section based on the third contour point and the candidate contour point” are taught by Amata (As discussed in the claim 3 rejection above, Arata’s triangulation schemes also generate a plurality of second triangular sections based on the contour edges in the second 2D contour point cloud and corresponding contour points of the first 2D contour point cloud, wherein the second 2D contour point cloud contour edges used to generate the plurality of second triangular sections will be defined between two adjacent points of the claimed first contour points in the second 2D point cloud used to define the first triangular sections. Arata’s generation of triangles in step 4, e.g. paragraphs 55, 72, corresponds to the claimed third triangular section(s), i.e. when the first contour runs out of points before the second contour, the end point of the first contour is used to generate the remaining triangles, meaning that any remaining contour points in the second contour which have not been used to generate a triangle are identified, and a third set of triangles are generated using the end contour point of the first contour and the remaining second contour edges adjacent to one or more second contour points which have not been used to generate a triangle. The identified second contour points which have not been used to generate a triangle correspond to the claimed candidate contour point(s) in the second 2D contour point cloud which are not involved in generation of the plurality of first triangular sections. The end point of the first contour used to generate the third set of triangles correspond to the claimed third contour point determined based on the presence of candidate contour point(s), where the third contour point already belongs to two first triangular sections, the two first triangular sections including the third contour point and one second 2D contour point adjacent to the (or a) candidate point, i.e. said two first triangular sections would be the first generated triangle and the last generated triangle prior to running out of contour points. Finally, the third set of triangles correspond to the third triangular section(s), i.e. the third contour point is used to generate third triangles using the contour edges adjacent to each of the candidate contour point(s).)
Regarding claim 25, the limitation “wherein the plurality of reconstructed contour points are contour points that are designated as the first contour points in the second two-dimensional contour point cloud” is taught by Amata (As discussed in the claim 3 rejection above, in addition to the claimed plurality of first triangular sections as discussed in the claim 3 rejection, Arata’s triangulation schemes also generate a plurality of second triangular sections based on the contour edges in the second 2D contour point cloud and corresponding contour points of the first 2D contour point cloud, wherein the second 2D contour point cloud contour edges used to generate the plurality of second triangular sections will be defined between two adjacent points of the claimed first contour points in the second 2D point cloud used to define the first triangular sections, i.e. as in figure 5, the triangles are generated such that every edge in both contours is the base of a triangle. That is, as required in claim 25, the first contour points in the second 2D point cloud used to define the first triangular sections are also the reconstructed contour points in the second 2D point cloud adjacent to the contour edges of the second 2D point cloud used to define the second triangular section(s).
Regarding claim 26, the limitation “wherein the grid model represents a virtual structure of a tubular shape; and the method further comprises: generating blocking grid sections in a head-end two-dimensional contour point cloud and a tail-end two-dimensional contour point cloud in the grid model of the tubular shape” is taught by Amata (As noted in the claim 9 rejection above, Arata, e.g. paragraph 39, indicates that the system can be used to construct models of other parts of the body such as organs, intestines, or muscles, i.e. one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that blood vessels are one type of organ which can be modeled by Arata’s system, which are tubular in shape. As noted in the claim 1 rejection above, in addition to the triangles/grid sections generated between adjacent contours, Arata, e.g. paragraph 87, also teaches that the model may be closed at the top and bottom contours by generating additional triangles using a centroid point, i.e. the claimed blocking grid sections at the head and tail end 2D contour point clouds.)
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 10 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication 2007/0253617 A1 (hereinafter Arata) as applied to claims 9 and 15 above, and further in view of “Virtual Teeth for Endodontics Training and Practice” by D.B. Arnold, et al. (hereinafter Arnold).
Regarding claim 10, the limitations “selecting at least one of the plurality of two-dimensional contour point clouds; and adjusting a contour expression of the at least one of the plurality of two-dimensional contour point clouds to simulate an abnormity of the virtual blood vessel” is not explicitly taught by Amata (Although one of ordinary skill in the art would have known that Arata’s organ grid models could be edited for use in simulating abnormity of the virtual organ, i.e. editing of models by modifying point positions is well known in the art of computer graphics processing, and Applicant’s background, e.g. paragraph 3, acknowledges that one of ordinary skill in the art would know that virtual medical models are used to create virtual organs simulating abnormal conditions, in the interest of compact prosecution Arnold is cited for teaching a system generating target organ models using 2D parallel contours derived from 3D scanning data which includes an editing function for editing the 2D contours used to generate the 3D model for the purpose of simulating abnormalities for training purposes.) However, this limitation is taught by Arnold (Arnold, e.g. abstract, sections 1-7, describes a system providing a virtual environment for defining and manipulating the geometric shapes of teeth, including obtaining 2D contours from 3D medical image data, e.g. section 3.1, and performing surface reconstruction by generating triangles between adjacent 2D contours, e.g. section 4.1, analogous to Arata’s system. Arnold, e.g. section 3.2, figure 1, further provides a contour editor which allows modifying 2D surface contour points, which in turn modifies the reconstructed model surface to reflect the modified 2D surface contour points, in order to generate models representing special cases for training purposes, i.e. the claimed steps of selecting at least one 2D contour point cloud and adjusting a contour expression to simulate an abnormity of the organ being modeled.)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Arata’s contour triangulation system to include Arnold’s contour editor interface in order to allow a user of Arata’s system to edit contour(s) used to generate the organ model to simulate abnormalities for training purposes, both because one of ordinary skill in the art would have known that Arata’s models could be edited for the purpose of simulating abnormalities as discussed above, and because Arnold teaches including the interface for the same purpose in an analogous system. In Arata’s modified system, when the target organ is a blood vessel, as discussed in the claim 9 rejection above, then a user using Arnold’s interface to edit the contours used to generate the organ model for simulating an abnormality would be simulating an abnormality of a virtual blood vessel.
Regarding claim 19, the limitations are similar to those treated in the above rejection(s) and are met by the references as discussed in claims 9 and 10 above.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication 2007/0253617 A1 (hereinafter Arata) as applied to 1 above, and further in view of “Extracting Surface Representations From Rim Curves” by Hai Chen, et al. (hereinafter Chen).
Regarding claim 22, the limitations “wherein the plurality of grid sections include a quadrangular section; and the generating a plurality of grid sections between two adjacent two-dimensional contour point clouds of the plurality of two-dimensional contour point clouds includes: selecting two contour points in each of the two adjacent two-dimensional contour point clouds; and connecting adjacent contour points of the four contour points to form the quadrangular section” are partially taught by Arata (As noted in the claim 1 rejection above, Arata, e.g. paragraphs 43-87, describes three embodiments for generating triangular grid sections between adjacent 2D contours in order to generate a complete surface mesh model of the target organ. While Arata does not explicitly address generation of quadrangular sections per se, it is noted that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that in at least some instances, Arata’s triangulation schemes will generate pairs of triangles corresponding to the claimed quadrangles/quadrangular sections, i.e. any two adjacent triangles formed using two points from each contour, where all four points are co-planar with one another will be defined by connecting adjacent pairs of adjacent contour points from each contour. Applicant’s disclosure, e.g. paragraph 127, suggests that the quadrangle may be generated by combining two adjacent triangles, i.e. the quadrangular section is a separate primitive/section type replacing the two triangular sections combined to create the quadrangular section. In the interest of compact prosecution, interpreting the claimed quadrangle sections to be a separate primitive/section type to the triangular sections, i.e. sections defined using a sequence of 4 points instead of 3 points, Chen is cited for teaching an improved contour surface reconstruction scheme which may generate quadrangles and triangles in order to improve the reconstruction quality compared to using only triangles or only quadrangles.) However, this limitation is taught by Chen (Chen, e.g. abstract, sections 1-5, describes a system for generating mesh models from parallel cross-section contours, analogous to Arata’s system. Chen, e.g. section 2.2, indicates that while triangle only schemes have advantages for representing sharp features, quadrangle only schemes have advantages for representing smooth features, and that better results are achieved by using schemes which can generate both triangles and quadrangles. Chen, e.g. section 3.2, describes the triangle and quadrangle contour mesh extraction scheme, including paragraphs 8-9, which evaluates the error for both possible triangles for a given pair of adjacent contour points, and also the error of a quadrangle using the given pair of adjacent contour points and the next pair of adjacent contour points along each contour. That is, Chen’s scheme operates in the same way as Arata’s closest distance triangulation scheme, e.g. paragraphs 52-54, except in addition to evaluating the two candidate triangles, except Chen’s scheme also evaluates the candidate quadrangle, and as shown in figures 2(c), 2(d), such that the resulting mesh between adjacent contours includes both triangles and quadrangles.)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Arata’s contour triangulation system to include Chen’s triangle and quadrangle mesh extraction scheme as an available alternative mesh extraction scheme to Arata’s disclosed triangulation schemes, i.e. Arata, e.g. paragraphs 77-87 describe a third embodiment wherein the results of the first triangulation scheme are checked for correctness, and the second triangulation scheme is used when the first triangulation scheme provides unacceptable results, such that by extension providing Chen’s scheme as a further alternative may allow for an improved resulting mesh in comparison to Arata’s two disclosed schemes, e.g. for objects including both sharp and smooth features, respectively best represented using triangles and quadrangles, as described by Chen in section 2.2.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT BADER whose telephone number is (571)270-3335. The examiner can normally be reached 11-7 m-f.
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, Tammy Goddard can be reached at 571-272-7773. 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.
/ROBERT BADER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2611
