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 .
Response to Amendment
This action is responsive to the amendments and remarks received 24 July 2026. Claims 1 - 3, 6 - 15 and 18 - 24 are currently pending.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Japan on 29 September 2021. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the JP 2021-160020 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 19 of claim 1 recites, in part, “select two of the images of the acquired cross-sectional images” which appears to contain a grammatical error and/or a minor informality. The Examiner suggests amending line 19 of claim 1 to either --select two images of the acquired cross-sectional images-- in order to improve the clarity and precision of the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 2 of claim 10 recites, in part, “wherein the object an artifact or” which appears to contain a grammatical error and/or a minor informality. The Examiner suggests amending the claim to --wherein the object is an artifact or-- in order to improve the clarity and precision of the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 16 of claim 13 recites, in part, “selecting two of the images of the acquired cross-sectional images” which appears to contain a grammatical error and/or a minor informality. The Examiner suggests amending the claim to either --selecting two. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 16 of claim 20 recites, in part, “selecting two of the images of the acquired cross-sectional images” which appears to contain a grammatical error and/or a minor informality. The Examiner suggests amending the claim to either --selecting two. Appropriate correction is required.
The objections to claims 6 - 8, 18 and 19, due to minor informalities, are hereby withdrawn in view of the amendments and remarks received 24 July 2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1 - 3, 6 - 15 and18 - 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention because it is unclear as to which one or more of the points in one of the selected images “said one or more of the points in one of the selected images” recited on lines 27 - 28 is referencing. Is it referring to the “one or more of the points in one of the selected images” recited on line 22 of claim 1, the “one or more of the points in the one of the selected images” recited on lines 24 - 25 of claim 1 or some other one or more points in the one of the selected images? Clarification and appropriate correction are required. For purposes of examination the Examiner will treat “said one or more of the points in one of the selected images” recited on lines 27 - 28 of claim 1 as referencing the “one or more of the points in one of the selected images” recited on line 22 of claim 1 less the “one or more of the points in the one of the selected images” recited on lines 24 - 25 of claim 1.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention because lines 22 - 23 of claim 1 “associate one or more of the points in one of the selected images with one or more of the points in the other selected image”, lines 24 - 25 of claim 1 recite “determine not to connect one or more of the points in the one of the selected images to the associated points in the other selected image when…” (emphasis added) and lines 27 - 29 of claim 1 recite “generate a 3-D image of the luminal organ in which said one or more of the points in one of the selected images are respectively connected to the associated points in the other selected image” (emphasis added) and it is thus unclear as to whether the 3-D image of the luminal organ generated on lines 27 - 29 of claim 1 is a 3-D image in which the one or more of the points the processor is configured to determine not to connect to the associated points on lines 24 - 25 of claim 1 are respectively connected to the associated points or are not respectively connected to the associated points. Clarification and appropriate correction are required. For purposes of examination the Examiner will treat the 3-D image of the luminal organ generated on lines 27 - 29 of claim 1 as a 3-D image in which the one or more of the points the processor determines not to connect to the associated points on lines 24 - 25 of claim 1 are not respectively connected to the associated points.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention because it is unclear as to which one or more of the points in one of the selected images “said one or more of the points in one of the selected images” recited on lines 24 - 25 is referencing. Is it referring to the “one or more of the points in one of the selected images” recited on line 19 of claim 13, the “one or more of the points in the one of the selected images” recited on lines 21 - 22 of claim 13 or some other one or more points in the one of the selected images? Clarification and appropriate correction are required. For purposes of examination the Examiner will treat “said one or more of the points in one of the selected images” recited on lines 24 - 25 of claim 13 as referencing the “one or more of the points in one of the selected images” recited on line 19 of claim 13 less the “one or more of the points in the one of the selected images” recited on lines 21-22 of claim 13.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention because lines 19 - 20 of claim 13 “associating one or more of the points in one of the selected images with one or more of the points in the other selected image”, lines 21 - 22 of claim 13 recite “determining not to connect one or more of the points in the one of the selected images to the associated points in the other selected image when…” (emphasis added) and lines 24 - 26 of claim 13 recite “generating a 3-D image of the luminal organ in which said one or more of the points in one of the selected images are respectively connected to the associated points in the other selected image” (emphasis added) and it is thus unclear as to whether the 3-D image of the luminal organ generated on lines 24 - 26 of claim 13 is a 3-D image in which the one or more of the points determined not to connect to the associated points on lines 21 - 22 of claim 13 are respectively connected to the associated points or are not respectively connected to the associated points. Clarification and appropriate correction are required. For purposes of examination the Examiner will treat the 3-D image of the luminal organ generated on lines 24 - 26 of claim 13 as a 3-D image in which the one or more of the points determined not to connect to the associated points on lines 21 - 22 of claim 13 are not respectively connected to the associated points.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention because it is unclear as to which one or more of the points in one of the selected images “said one or more of the points in one of the selected images” recited on lines 24 - 25 is referencing. Is it referring to the “one or more of the points in one of the selected images” recited on line 19 of claim 20, the “one or more of the points in the one of the selected images” recited on lines 21 - 22 of claim 20 or some other one or more points in the one of the selected images? Clarification and appropriate correction are required. For purposes of examination the Examiner will treat “said one or more of the points in one of the selected images” recited on lines 24 - 25 of claim 20 as referencing the “one or more of the points in one of the selected images” recited on line 19 of claim 20 less the “one or more of the points in the one of the selected images” recited on lines 21-22 of claim 20.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention because lines 19 - 20 of claim 20 “associating one or more of the points in one of the selected images with one or more of the points in the other selected image”, lines 21 - 22 of claim 20 recite “determining not to connect one or more of the points in the one of the selected images to the associated points in the other selected image when…” (emphasis added) and lines 24 - 26 of claim 20 recite “generating a 3-D image of the luminal organ in which said one or more of the points in one of the selected images are respectively connected to the associated points in the other selected image” (emphasis added) and it is thus unclear as to whether the 3-D image of the luminal organ generated on lines 24 - 26 of claim 20 is a 3-D image in which the one or more of the points determined not to connect to the associated points on lines 21 - 22 of claim 20 are respectively connected to the associated points or are not respectively connected to the associated points. Clarification and appropriate correction are required. For purposes of examination the Examiner will treat the 3-D image of the luminal organ generated on lines 24 - 26 of claim 20 as a 3-D image in which the one or more of the points determined not to connect to the associated points on lines 21 - 22 of claim 20 are not respectively connected to the associated points.
Claim 21 recites the limitation “the boundary of the side branch" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 21 recites the limitation "the boundary of a main branch" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 22 recites the limitation "the boundary of the side branch" in lines 2 - 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 22 recites the limitation "the boundary of a main branch" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 23 recites the limitation “the boundary of the side branch" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 23 recites the limitation "the boundary of a main branch" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 2, 3, 6 - 12, 14, 15, 18, 19 and 24 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, due to being dependent upon a rejected base claim(s) but would be withdrawn from the rejection if their base claim(s) overcome the rejection.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 21 - 24 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant's arguments filed 24 July 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 11 - 12 of the remarks the Applicant’s Representative argues that “the cited references fail to render each now pending claim obvious” at least because Manabe et al. is “not concerned with an apparatus in which the ‘processor [is] configured to ... determine whether a side branch of the luminal organ is shown in each acquired cross-sectional image of the acquired cross-sectional images based on the segmentation data [and] determine not to connect one or more of the points in the one of the selected images to the associated points in the other selected image when the side branch is determined to be shown in one of the selected images based on the segmentation data.’” The Applicant’s Representative argues that the previously cited portions of Manabe et al. “concern a[n] image smoothing process by which points detected outside a main channel are deleted or moved to become part of the main channel path” and that, if the process of Manabe et al. were combined with Gulsun et al. in view of Aharon et al. in view of Balocco et al., “the presumed contour points corresponding to a side branch would be integrated into the contour of the main vessel/lumen path, and the side branch itself would disappear from the 3D image”. Therefore, the Applicant’s Representative argues that Manabe et al. neither teach nor suggest “the recited configuration of present claim 1 as such related to ‘side branch’ handling and the like.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
The Examiner asserts that Gulsun et al. in view of Aharon et al. in view of Balocco et al. in view of Manabe et al. disclose the aforementioned disputed claim limitation(s). In particular, the Examiner asserts that, at least, Manabe et al. disclose the aforementioned disputed claim limitation(s), see at least figures 1 - 3, 8, 12 and 19 - 24, page 1 paragraph 0009, page 2 paragraphs 0045 and 0048 - 0050, page 3 paragraphs 0055, 0057 - 0058 and 0061, page 4 paragraphs 0067 - 0069 and 0072, page 5 paragraph 0077 and page 6 paragraphs 0084, 0086 - 0089 and 0093 of Manabe et al. wherein it is disclosed that “images of multiple cross-sections of the coronary artery are created from the cut-out volume data D2 (step S12). Scan in a direction from the core point P1 to the internal wall is performed, and contour points P2 of the internal wall are extracted (step S13)… If a branch or an irregular point is found, a further correction is made (step S15)” [0061], that “In step S15 of FIG. 8, a branch judgment in the following manner… If the distance is larger than a certain distance, the target contour point P2 is determined as a front endpoint of a branch” [0067], that “in step 15 of FIG. 8, a branch correction is performed in the following manner. For instance, as shown in FIG. 20, a contour point… is determined as the starting point of the branch. The branch is separated from the coronary artery by a straight line joining the starting point of the branch and the contour point P2 immediately next to the front end point of the branch. Thus, as shown in FIG. 21, contour points P2 outside the straight line are relocated onto the straight line (see contour points inside the black circle in FIG. 21)” [0068], that “of the extracted contour points P3 of the external wall, out-of-position points are corrected. For instance, contour points P3 extracted in wrong positions… are recognized as the out-of-position points, and thus removed” [0072], that “multiple contour points P2 of the lumen are acquired by use of the slice images included the acquired CPR images; some of the acquired contour points P2 are corrected” [0084], that “performed is the correction in which, of the acquired contour points P2, contour points P2 located in the vicinity of the branch of the blood vessel are relocated inside the blood vessel to smooth the contour of the lumen” [0086] and that “in the embodiment of the present invention: whether a branch extends from the blood vessel is judged depending on a relationship between positions of the lumen of the blood vessel, the positions being respectively detected from the multiple longitudinal cross-sectional images, and on a basis of this judgment, the correction unit performs correction in which the lumen of the blood vessel is moved inside the blood vessel so that the lumen of the blood vessel is smoothed” [0093].
The Examiner asserts that, as shown herein above and in the cited portions, Manabe et al. disclose extracting multiple contour points of a lumen from cross-sectional images, determining whether any of the extracted contour points correspond to a branch extending from the lumen and correcting extracted contour points that are determined as corresponding to a branch of the lumen by relocating the corresponding contour points before connecting multiple contour points of the lumen from one image to associated contour points in another image so that the contour of the lumen can be obtained. The Examiner asserts that Manabe et al. determine not to connect one or more of the points in the one of the selected images to the associated points in the other selected image when the side branch is determined to be shown in one of the selected images at least because Manabe et al. relocate contour points that are determined as corresponding to a branch of the lumen and thus do not connect contour points determined as corresponding to a branch of the lumen with any associated points in any other image.
Therefore, the Examiner asserts that at least Manabe et al. disclose the aforementioned disputed claim limitation(s).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1 - 3, 7, 8, 10 - 15, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gulsun et al. U.S. Publication No. 2019/0130578 A1 in view of Aharon et al. U.S. Publication No. 2008/0100621 A1 in view of Balocco et al. U.S. Publication No. 2012/0130243 A1 in view of Manabe et al. U.S. Publication No. 2010/0092053 A1.
- With regards to claims 1, 13 and 20, [As Best Understood by the Examiner] Gulsun et al. disclose a medical image processing apparatus for processing medical images of a luminal organ, (Gulsun et al., Abstract, Figs. 1 - 5, 7 & 8, Pg. 1 ¶ 0005 - 0008, Pg. 2 ¶ 0021 - 0023, Pg. 5 ¶ 0049 - 0053, Pg. 6 ¶ 0057 - 0061) a method carried out by a medical image processing apparatus for processing medical images of a luminal organ, (Gulsun et al., Abstract, Figs. 1 - 5, 7 & 8, Pg. 1 ¶ 0005 - 0008, Pg. 2 ¶ 0021 - 0023, Pg. 5 ¶ 0049 - 0053, Pg. 6 ¶ 0057 - 0061) and a non-transitory computer readable medium storing a program causing a computer to execute a method for processing medical images of a luminal organ, (Gulsun et al., Abstract, Figs. 1 - 5, 7 & 8, Pg. 1 ¶ 0005 - 0008, Pg. 2 ¶ 0021 - 0023, Pg. 5 ¶ 0049 - 0053, Pg. 6 ¶ 0057 - 0061, Pg. 7 ¶ 0066 - 0068) comprising: a first interface circuit connectable to an ultrasonic imaging system; (Gulsun et al., Pg. 1 ¶ 0008, Pg. 2 ¶ 0021 and 0023 - 0026, Pg. 3 ¶ 0031, Pg. 5 ¶ 0049 - 0052, Pg. 6 ¶ 0058 - 0061, Pg. 7 ¶ 0068 - 0075) a second interface circuit connectable to a display; (Gulsun et al., Fig. 8, Pg. 5 ¶ 0047, Pg. 6 ¶ 0057 - 0061, Pg. 7 ¶ 0072 - 0073) and a processor (Gulsun et al., Fig. 8, Pg. 1 ¶ 0008, Pg. 2 ¶ 0023, Pg. 5 ¶ 0051, Pg. 6 ¶ 0058 - 0060 and 0064, Pg. 7 ¶ 0067 - 0075) configured to: acquire a plurality of cross-sectional images of the luminal organ along a longitudinal direction thereof, (Gulsun et al., Figs. 2 -5, Pg. 1 ¶ 0008, Pg. 2 ¶ 0021 - 0026, Pg. 3 ¶ 0028 and 0036, Pg. 6 ¶ 0061) input the acquired cross-sectional images into a first machine learning model that has been trained to classify each pixel in a luminal organ image (Gulsun et al., Abstract, Figs. 3 - 5, Pg. 1 ¶ 0005 - 0006 and 0008, Pg. 3 ¶ 0028, 0032, 0034 and 0036, Pg. 4 ¶ 0042, Pg. 5 ¶ 0046 - 0048) and, for each acquired cross-sectional image of the acquired cross-sectional images, obtain position data indicating a boundary between regions of the luminal organ based on segmentation data output from the first machine learning model, (Gulsun et al., Figs. 3 & 5, Pg. 1 ¶ 0003 - 0006 and 0008, Pg. 2 ¶ 0021 - 0023, Pg. 3 ¶ 0034, Pg. 4 ¶ 0042, Pg. 5 ¶ 0046 - 0052) select two of the images of the acquired cross-sectional images that are consecutive and identify a group of points corresponding to the boundary in each of the two selected images based on the obtained position data, (Gulsun et al., Figs. 3 - 5, Pg. 2 ¶ 0022, Pg. 4 ¶ 0042 - Pg. 5 ¶ 0049, Pg. 5 ¶ 0052, Pg. 6 ¶ 0057, Pg. 7 ¶ 0069) associate one of the selected images with the other selected image, (Gulsun et al., Figs. 3 - 5, Pg. 2 ¶ 0022, Pg. 4 ¶ 0042 - Pg. 5 ¶ 0047, Pg. 6 ¶ 0057, Pg. 7 ¶ 0069) generate a 3-D image of the luminal organ in which the one of the selected images is connected to the other selected image, (Gulsun et al., Figs. 3 & 7, Pg. 2 ¶ 0021 - 0022, Pg. 5 ¶ 0046 - 0048 and 0052, Pg. 6 ¶ 0057, Pg. 7 ¶ 0069) and control the display to display the generated 3-D image. (Gulsun et al., Fig. 8, Pg. 2 ¶ 0021 - 0023 and 0025 - 0026, Pg. 5 ¶ 0046 - 0047, Pg. 6 ¶ 0057, Pg. 7 ¶ 0072) Gulsun et al. fail to disclose explicitly a catheter having an ultrasonic probe and insertable into a luminal organ; controlling the catheter to acquire a plurality of cross-sectional images of the luminal organ when the catheter is inserted into the luminal organ and moved along a longitudinal direction thereof, determining whether a side branch of the luminal organ is shown in each acquired cross-sectional image of the acquired cross-sectional images based on the segmentation data, associating one or more of the points in one of the selected images with one or more of the points in the other selected image, determining not to connect one or more of the points in the one of the selected images to the associated points in the other selected image when the side branch is determined to be shown in one of the selected images based on the segmentation data, and generating a 3-D image in which said one or more of the points in one of the selected images are respectively connected to the associated points in the other selected image. Pertaining to analogous art, Aharon et al. disclose a medical image processing apparatus for processing medical images of a luminal organ, (Aharon et al., Abstract, Fig. 6, Pg. 1 ¶ 0006, Pg. 2 ¶ 0030 - Pg. 3 ¶ 0033, Pg. 5 ¶ 0046 - 0049, Pg. 6 ¶ 0063 - Pg. 7 ¶ 0065) a method carried out by a medical image processing apparatus for processing medical images of a luminal organ, (Aharon et al., Abstract, Fig. 6, Pg. 1 ¶ 0006, Pg. 2 ¶ 0030 - Pg. 3 ¶ 0033, Pg. 5 ¶ 0046 - 0049, Pg. 6 ¶ 0063 - Pg. 7 ¶ 0065) and a non-transitory computer readable medium storing a program causing a computer to execute a method for processing medical images of a luminal organ, (Aharon et al., Abstract, Fig. 6, Pg. 1 ¶ 0006, Pg. 2 ¶ 0030 - Pg. 3 ¶ 0033, Pg. 5 ¶ 0046 - 0049, Pg. 6 ¶ 0063 - Pg. 7 ¶ 0065) comprising: a first interface circuit connectable to an ultrasonic imaging system; (Aharon et al., Fig. 6, Pg. 3 ¶ 0031, Pg. 6 ¶ 0063 - Pg. 7 ¶ 0065) a second interface circuit connectable to a display; (Aharon et al., Fig. 6, Pg. 6 ¶ 0063 - Pg. 7 ¶ 0065) and a processor (Aharon et al., Fig. 6, Pg. 3 ¶ 0031, Pg. 6 ¶ 0063 - Pg. 7 ¶ 0065) configured to: select two of the images of the acquired cross-sectional images that are consecutive and identify a group of points corresponding to the boundary in each of the two selected images based on the obtained position data, (Aharon et al., Fig. 5, Pg. Pg. 1 ¶ 0006, Pg. 2 ¶ 0027, Pg. 3 ¶ 0031 - 0033 and 0036 - 0037, Pg. 5 ¶ 0047 - 0049) associate one or more of the points in one of the selected images with one or more of the points in the other selected image, (Aharon et al., Fig. 5, Pg. 2 ¶ 0027, Pg. 5 ¶ 0047 - 0049) generate a 3-D image of the luminal organ in which said one or more of the points in one of the selected images are respectively connected to the associated points in the other selected image, (Aharon et al., Figs. 1a, 1b & 5, Pg. 5 ¶ 0049 - 0050) and control the display to display the generated 3-D image. (Aharon et al., Figs. 1a, 1b, 5 & 6, Pg. 5 ¶ 0049 - 0050, Pg. 6 ¶ 0060 - 0064) Aharon et al. fail to disclose explicitly a catheter having an ultrasonic probe and insertable into a luminal organ; controlling the catheter to acquire a plurality of cross-sectional images of the luminal organ when the catheter is inserted into the luminal organ and moved along a longitudinal direction thereof; determining whether a side branch of the luminal organ is shown in each acquired cross-sectional image of the acquired cross-sectional images based on the segmentation data, and determining not to connect one or more of the points in the one of the selected images to the associated points in the other selected image when the side branch is determined to be shown in one of the selected images based on the segmentation data. Pertaining to analogous art, Balocco et al. disclose a medical image processing apparatus for processing medical images of a luminal organ, (Balocco et al., Abstract, Figs. 1 & 4 - 13, Pg. 2 ¶ 0022 - 0024 and 0026 - 0027, Pg. 3 ¶ 0040, Pg. 4 ¶ 0045 - 0046 and 0050 - 0053, Pg. 5 ¶ 0056 - 0058 and 0063 - 0066, Pg. 6 ¶ 0071 - 0075, Pg. 9 ¶ 0100 - 0101) a method carried out by a medical image processing apparatus for processing medical images of a luminal organ, (Balocco et al., Abstract, Figs. 1 & 4 - 13, Pg. 2 ¶ 0022 - 0024 and 0026 - 0027, Pg. 3 ¶ 0040, Pg. 4 ¶ 0045 - 0046 and 0050 - 0053, Pg. 5 ¶ 0056 - 0058 and 0063 - 0066, Pg. 6 ¶ 0071 - 0075, Pg. 9 ¶ 0100 - 0101) and a non-transitory computer readable medium storing a program causing a computer to execute a method for processing medical images of a luminal organ, (Balocco et al., Abstract, Figs. 1 & 4 - 13, Pg. 2 ¶ 0022 - 0024 and 0026 - 0027, Pg. 3 ¶ 0040, Pg. 4 ¶ 0045 - 0046 and 0050 - 0053, Pg. 5 ¶ 0056 - 0058 and 0063 - 0066, Pg. 6 ¶ 0071 - 0075, Pg. 9 ¶ 0100 - 0101) comprising: a first interface circuit connectable to a catheter having an ultrasonic probe and insertable into a luminal organ; (Balocco et al., Abstract, Figs. 1 - 3 & 8, Pg. 2 ¶ 0022 and 0026 - 0031, Pg. 3 ¶ 0036 - 0040, Pg. 4 ¶ 0044 - 0047) a second interface circuit connectable to a display; (Balocco et al., Fig. 1, Pg. 2 ¶ 0022 - 0025 and 0027 - 0029, Pg. 3 ¶ 0038 - 0039, Pg. 4 ¶ 0051) and a processor (Balocco et al., Fig. 1, Pg. 2 ¶ 0023 - 0025 and 0027 - 0029, Pg. 3 ¶ 0038, Pg. 4 ¶ 0045, Pg. 9 ¶ 0100 - 0101) configured to: control the catheter to acquire a plurality of cross-sectional images of the luminal organ when the catheter is inserted into the luminal organ and moved along a longitudinal direction thereof; (Balocco et al., Abstract, Figs. 1, 5 & 8, Pg. 2 ¶ 0022 and 0026 - 0028, Pg. 3 ¶ 0036 - 0040, Pg. 4 ¶ 0044 - 0048 and 0051 - 0053) and determine whether a side branch of the luminal organ is shown in each acquired cross-sectional image of the acquired cross-sectional images based on the segmentation data. (Balocco et al., Figs. 5 & 8, Pg. 2 ¶ 0022, Pg. 4 ¶ 0051 - 0055, Pg. 5 ¶ 0057 - 0060, 0062 - 0064 and 0066, Pg. 6 ¶ 0075, Pg. 9 ¶ 0096 - 0099) Balocco et al. fail to disclose explicitly determining not to connect one or more of the points in the one of the selected images to the associated points in the other selected image when the side branch is determined to be shown in one of the selected images based on the segmentation data. Pertaining to analogous art, Manabe et al. disclose a processor (Manabe et al., Figs. 1 & 2, Pg. 1 ¶ 0008 - 0009, Pg. 2 ¶ 0045 and 0048 - 0050, Pg. 3 ¶ 0055 - 0057) configured to: determine whether a side branch of the luminal organ is shown in each acquired cross-sectional image of the acquired cross-sectional images based on the segmentation data, (Manabe et al., Abstract, Figs. 3, 8, 12 & 19 - 24, Pg. 1 ¶ 0009 - 0010, Pg. 3 ¶ 0058 and 0061, Pg. 4 ¶ 0064 - 0069 and 0072, Pg. 6 ¶ 0084 - 0088 and 0093) determine not to connect one or more of the points in the one of the selected images to the associated points in the other selected image when the side branch is determined to be shown in one of the selected images based on the segmentation data, (Manabe et al., Abstract, Figs. 8, 12 & 19 - 24, Pg. 3 ¶ 0061, Pg. 4 ¶ 0067 - 0069 and 0072, Pg. 6 ¶ 0084, 0086 - 0089 and 0093) and generate a 3-D image of the luminal organ in which said one or more of the points in one of the selected images are respectively connected to the associated points in the other selected image. (Manabe et al., Figs. 2 - 9, 22 - 24 & 29 - 33, Pg. 3 ¶ 0051, 0053 and 0055 - 0059, Pg. 4 ¶ 0068 - 0072, Pg. 5 ¶ 0074 and 0077 - 0079, Pg. 6 ¶ 0084, 0086 - 0090 and 0093) Gulsun et al. and Aharon et al. are combinable because they are both directed towards medical image processing systems and methods that process cross-sectional ultrasound images of a luminal organ. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Gulsun et al. with the teachings of Aharon et al. This modification would have been prompted in order to substitute the three-dimensional model generation technique of Gulsun et al. for the three-dimensional model construction process of Aharon et al. The three-dimensional model construction process of Aharon et al. could be substituted in place of the three-dimensional model generation technique of Gulsun et al. using well-known techniques in the art and would likely yield predictable results, in that, in the combination, the three-dimensional model construction process of Aharon et al. would be utilized to create the three-dimensional vessel model of the base device of Gulsun et al. Furthermore, this modification would have been prompted by the teachings and suggestions of Gulsun et al. that the segmented images may be stitched or connected to provide a wire frame model, e.g., mesh, of vessel, see at least page 5 paragraph 0047 and page 6 paragraph 0057 of Gulsun et al. This combination could be completed according to well-known techniques in the art and would likely yield predictable results, in that the base device of Gulsun et al. would utilize the three-dimensional model construction process of Aharon et al. to create the three-dimensional model of the vessel. In addition, Gulsun et al. in view of Aharon et al. and Balocco et al. are combinable because they are all directed towards medical image processing systems and methods that process cross-sectional ultrasound images of a luminal organ. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combined teachings of Gulsun et al. in view of Aharon et al. with the teachings of Balocco et al. This modification would have been prompted in order to substitute the ultrasound medical imaging system of Gulsun et al. for the intravascular ultrasound imaging system of Balocco et al. The intravascular ultrasound imaging system of Balocco et al. could be substituted in place of the ultrasound medical imaging system of Gulsun et al. using well-known techniques in the art and would likely yield predictable results, in that, in the combination, the combined base device of Gulsun et al. in view of Aharon et al. would utilize the intravascular ultrasound imaging system of Balocco et al. to acquire the plurality of cross-sectional images of the luminal organ. Furthermore, this modification would have been prompted by the teachings and suggestions of Gulsun et al. that their series of image frames may be acquired using any imaging technique, see at least page 2 paragraph 0024, page 5 paragraphs 0049 - 0052 and page 6 paragraph 0061 of Gulsun et al. This combination could be completed according to well-known techniques in the art and would likely yield predictable results, in that the combined base device of Gulsun et al. in view of Aharon et al. would utilize the intravascular ultrasound imaging system of Balocco et al. to acquire the plurality of cross-sectional images of the luminal organ. Additionally, Gulsun et al. in view of Aharon et al. in view of Balocco et al. and Manabe et al. are combinable because they are all directed towards medical image processing systems and methods that process cross-sectional images of a luminal organ. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combined teachings of Gulsun et al. in view of Aharon et al. in view of Balocco et al. with the teachings of Manabe et al. This modification would have been prompted in order to enhance the combined base device of Gulsun et al. in view of Aharon et al. in view of Balocco et al. with the well-known and applicable technique Manabe et al. applied to a comparable device. Determining whether a side branch of the luminal organ is shown in each acquired cross-sectional image of the acquired cross-sectional images based on the segmentation data and determining not to connect one or more of the points in the one of the selected images to the associated points in the other selected image when the side branch is determined to be shown in one of the selected images based on the segmentation data, as taught by Manabe et al., would enhance the combined base device by helping ensure that the continuity of a blood vessel remains uninterrupted due to the sudden appearance and/or disappearance of a side branch extending away from the blood vessel in the three-dimensional model of the blood vessel thereby improving the ability of the combined base device to generate accurate, reliable and high-quality three-dimensional models of luminal organs. Furthermore, this modification would have been prompted by the teachings and suggestions of Aharon et al. that branch points require special handling, see at least page 5 paragraph 0048 of Aharon et al. This combination could be completed according to well-known techniques in the art and would likely yield predictable results, in that the combined base device would determine whether a side branch of the luminal organ is shown in each of the images and determine not to connect one or more of the points in the one of the selected images to the associated points in the other selected image when the side branch is determined to be shown in one of the selected images so as to help ensure that the continuity of a blood vessel is preserved in the three-dimensional model of the blood vessel and thereby improve the ability of the combined base device to generate accurate, reliable and high-quality three-dimensional models of luminal organs. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Gulsun et al. with Aharon et al., Balocco et al. and Manabe et al. to obtain the invention as specified in claims 1, 13 and 20.
- With regards to claims 2 and 14, Gulsun et al. in view of Aharon et al. in view of Balocco et al. in view of Manabe et al. disclose the medical image processing apparatus and method according to claims 1 and 13, respectively. Gulsun et al. fail to disclose explicitly wherein the processor is configured to: determine a positional difference between each of the points in one of the selected images and each of the points in the other selected image, and associate one of the points in one of the selected images to the one of the points in the other selected image for which the positional difference is smallest. Pertaining to analogous art, Aharon et al. disclose wherein the processor (Aharon et al., Fig. 6, Pg. 3 ¶ 0031, Pg. 6 ¶ 0063 - Pg. 7 ¶ 0065) is configured to: determine a positional difference between each of the points in one of the selected images and each of the points in the other selected image, (Aharon et al., Fig. 5, Pg. 3 ¶ 0031 - 0033 and 0036 - 0037, Pg. 5 ¶ 0047, Pg. 6 ¶ 0059) and associate one of the points in one of the selected images to the one of the points in the other selected image for which the positional difference is smallest. (Aharon et al., Fig. 5, Pg. 3 ¶ 0031 - 0033 and 0036 - 0037, Pg. 5 ¶ 0047, Pg. 6 ¶ 0059 [“A 3D coronary triangulated surface model, also known as a mesh, is then constructed at step 128 from these 2D contours. Starting with successive contours, that is, cross-sectional boundaries, one boundary is sampled and the corresponding points on the other contour are located, from which a local triangulation surface is constructed. Each point is connected to the two closest points on the other contour to form a tubular mesh. FIG. 5 depicts triangulation between two successive contours, according to an embodiment of the invention.”])
- With regards to claims 3 and 15, Gulsun et al. in view of Aharon et al. in view of Balocco et al. in view of Manabe et al. disclose the medical image processing apparatus and method according to claims 2 and 14, respectively. Gulsun et al. fail to disclose explicitly wherein the processor is configured not to associate points in one of the selected images and points in the other selected image for which the positional difference is greater than or equal to a threshold. Pertaining to analogous art, Aharon et al. disclose wherein the processor (Aharon et al., Fig. 6, Pg. 3 ¶ 0031, Pg. 6 ¶ 0063 - Pg. 7 ¶ 0065) is configured not to associate points in one of the selected images and points in the other selected image for which the positional difference is greater than or equal to a threshold. (Aharon et al., Fig. 5, Pg. 3 ¶ 0031 - 0033 and 0036 - 0037, Pg. 5 ¶ 0047, Pg. 6 ¶ 0059 [“Each point is connected to the two closest points on the other contour to form a tubular mesh.” The Examiner asserts that if a distance between a point in a first image and a point in a successive image is greater than a distance between the second closest point in the successive image to the point in the first image, i.e., a threshold, then they are not associated to each other.])
- With regards to claims 7 and 19, Gulsun et al. in view of Aharon et al. in view of Balocco et al. in view of Manabe et al. disclose the medical image processing apparatus and method according to claims 1 and 13, respectively, wherein the processor is configured to: determine whether an artifact is shown in each acquired cross-sectional image of the acquired cross-sectional images based on the segmentation data, (Gulsun et al., Pg. 4 ¶ 0042, Pg. 5 ¶ 0046 - 0048, Pg. 7 ¶ 0070 - 0072) and upon determining that an artifact is shown in one of the acquired cross-sectional images, modify the corresponding cross-sectional image such that a part of the image corresponding to the determined artifact is emphasized. (Gulsun et al., Pg. 4 ¶ 0042, Pg. 5 ¶ 0046 - 0048, Pg. 6 ¶ 0057, Pg. 7 ¶ 0070 - 0072)
- With regards to claim 8, Gulsun et al. in view of Aharon et al. in view of Balocco et al. in view of Manabe et al. disclose the medical image processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to: input the acquired cross-sectional images into a second machine learning model that has been trained to detect a presence or an absence of an object in a luminal organ image (Gulsun et al., Figs. 3 - 7, Pg. 3 ¶ 0034 - 0036, Pg. 4 ¶ 0042, Pg. 5 ¶ 0046 - 0050, Pg. 6 ¶ 0056 - 0057, Pg. 7 ¶ 0069 - 0072) and, for each acquired cross-sectional image of the acquired cross-sectional images, obtain information from the second machine learning model indicating whether or not the object is present or absent in the acquired cross-sectional image, (Gulsun et al., Figs. 3 - 7, Pg. 4 ¶ 0042, Pg. 5 ¶ 0046 - 0050, Pg. 6 ¶ 0057, Pg. 7 ¶ 0069 - 0072) and superimpose an image of the object on the 3-D image based on the obtained information when the object is detected as present. (Gulsun et al., Figs. 3 - 7, Pg. 4 ¶ 0042, Pg. 5 ¶ 0046 - 0049, Pg. 6 ¶ 0057, Pg. 7 ¶ 0069 - 0072)
- With regards to claim 10, Gulsun et al. in view of Aharon et al. in view of Balocco et al. in view of Manabe et al. disclose the medical image processing apparatus according to claim 8, wherein the object an artifact or a lesion. (Gulsun et al., Pg. 4 ¶ 0042, Pg. 5 ¶ 0046 - 0049, Pg. 7 ¶ 0070 - 0072)
- With regards to claim 11, Gulsun et al. in view of Aharon et al. in view of Balocco et al. in view of Manabe et al. disclose the medical image processing apparatus according to claim 8, wherein the object and the luminal organ are displayed in different colors in the generated 3-D image. (Gulsun et al., Pg. 4 ¶ 0042, Pg. 5 ¶ 0046 - 0048)
- With regards to claim 12, Gulsun et al. in view of Aharon et al. in view of Balocco et al. in view of Manabe et al. disclose the medical image processing apparatus according to claim 1. Gulsun et al. fail to disclose explicitly wherein the processor controls the catheter to acquire the cross-sectional images of the luminal organ based on a gravity center moving distance of the luminal organ, predetermined cardiac cycle data, or correlation data of a predetermined index of a predetermined site. Pertaining to analogous art, Balocco et al. disclose wherein the processor (Balocco et al., Fig. 1, Pg. 2 ¶ 0023 - 0025 and 0027 - 0029, Pg. 3 ¶ 0038, Pg. 4 ¶ 0045, Pg. 9 ¶ 0100 - 0101) controls the catheter to acquire the cross-sectional images of the luminal organ based on a gravity center moving distance of the luminal organ, predetermined cardiac cycle data, or correlation data of a predetermined index of a predetermined site. (Balocco et al., Figs. 1, 5 & 8, Pg. 2 ¶ 0022 - 0024 and 0026 - 0028, Pg. 4 ¶ 0051 and 0054, Pg. 5 ¶ 0064 - 0065, Pg. 6 ¶ 0071 - 0072, Pg. 9 ¶ 0100 - 0101 [“an image-based gating method can be used to identify the frames with minimal motion blur that can be considered as belonging to the same phase of the cardiac cycle.”]) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combined teachings of Gulsun et al. in view of Aharon et al. in view of Balocco et al. in view of Manabe et al. with additional teachings of Balocco et al. This modification would have been prompted in order to enhance the combined base device of Gulsun et al. in view of Aharon et al. in view of Balocco et al. in view of Manabe et al. with the well-known and applicable technique Balocco et al. applied to a comparable device. Controlling the catheter to acquire the cross-sectional images of the luminal organ based on a gravity center moving distance of the luminal organ, predetermined cardiac cycle data, or correlation data of a predetermined index of a predetermined site, as taught by Balocco et al., would enhance the combined base device by helping ensure that optimally stable frames exhibiting minimal motion blur are acquired and utilized to generate the three-dimensional model of the luminal organ thereby improving its ability to generate an accurate, reliable and high-quality three-dimensional model of the luminal organ. This combination could be completed according to well-known techniques in the art and would likely yield predictable results, in that the catheter would be controlled to acquire the cross-sectional images of the luminal organ based on a gravity center moving distance of the luminal organ, predetermined cardiac cycle data, or correlation data of a predetermined index of a predetermined site so as to help ensure that the combined base device acquires and utilizes optimally stable frames with minimal motion blur to generate the three-dimensional model of the luminal organ so as to improve its ability to generate an accurate, reliable and high-quality three-dimensional model of the luminal organ. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Gulsun et al. in view of Aharon et al. in view of Balocco et al. in view of Manabe et al. with additional teachings of Balocco et al. to obtain the invention as specified in claim 12.
Claims 6 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gulsun et al. U.S. Publication No. 2019/0130578 A1 in view of Aharon et al. U.S. Publication No. 2008/0100621 A1 in view of Balocco et al. U.S. Publication No. 2012/0130243 A1 in view of Manabe et al. U.S. Publication No. 2010/0092053 A1 as applied to claims 1 and 13 above, and further in view of Schmitt et al. U.S. Publication No. 2011/0071404 A1.
- With regards to claims 6 and 18, Gulsun et al. in view of Aharon et al. in view of Balocco et al. in view of Manabe et al. disclose the medical image processing apparatus and method according to claims 1 and 13, respectively. Gulsun et al. fail to disclose explicitly wherein the processor is configured to: determine whether a part of the boundary falls outside of each acquired cross-sectional image of the acquired cross-sectional images based on the segmentation data, and upon determining that a part of the boundary falls outside of one of the acquired cross-sectional images, modify the corresponding cross-sectional image such that the determined part of the boundary is interpolated therein. Pertaining to analogous art, Schmitt et al. disclose wherein the processor (Schmitt et al., Fig. 1A, Pg. 4 ¶ 0058, Pg. 11 ¶ 0128 - 0135) is configured to: determine whether a part of the boundary falls outside of each acquired cross-sectional image of the acquired cross-sectional images based on the segmentation data, (Schmitt et al., Figs. 2 & 6a, Pg. 2 ¶ 0017 - 0019, Pg. 3 ¶ 0026, Pg. 4 ¶ 0058 - 0060 and 0063 - 0064, Pg. 5 ¶ 0070, Pg. 5 ¶ 0074 - Pg. 6 ¶ 0076) and upon determining that a part of the boundary falls outside of one of the acquired cross-sectional images, modify the corresponding cross-sectional image such that the determined part of the boundary is interpolated therein. (Schmitt et al., Figs. 2 & 6a, Pg. 2 ¶ 0017 - 0019, Pg. 3 ¶ 0026, Pg. 4 ¶ 0058 - 0060 and 0063 - 0064, Pg. 5 ¶ 0070, Pg. 5 ¶ 0074 - Pg. 6 ¶ 0076) Gulsun et al. in view of Aharon et al. in view of Balocco et al. in view of Manabe et al. and Schmitt et al. are combinable because they are all directed towards medical image processing systems and methods that process cross-sectional images of a luminal organ. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combined teachings of Gulsun et al. in view of Aharon et al. in view of Balocco et al. in view of Manabe et al. with the teachings of Schmitt et al. This modification would have been prompted in order to enhance the combined base device of Gulsun et al. in view of Aharon et al. in view of Balocco et al. in view of Manabe et al. with the well-known and applicable technique Schmitt et al. applied to a comparable device. Determining whether a part of the boundary falls outside of each acquired cross-sectional image of the acquired cross-sectional images based on the segmentation data and, upon determining that a part of the boundary falls outside of an image, modifying the corresponding image such that the determined part of the boundary is interpolated therein, as taught by Schmitt et al., would enhance the combined base device by improving its ability to generate accurate, reliable and high-quality three-dimensional models of luminal organs since any missing parts of the boundary of a luminal organ in the images of the luminal organ would be obtained via interpolation so as to help ensure that the continuity of the luminal organ is accurately preserved and represented in the three-dimensional model of the luminal organ. Furthermore, this modification would have been prompted by the teachings and suggestions of Manabe et al. that contour points more than a predetermined distance away from their corresponding core points are removed and that contour points from adjacent slices are used to correct the removed contour points, see at least page 4 paragraph 0071 - page 5 paragraph 0074 and page 6 paragraphs 0088 - 0089 of Manabe et al. This combination could be completed according to well-known techniques in the art and would likely yield predictable results, in that the combined base device would determine whether a part of the boundary falls outside of each of the acquired cross-sectional images based on the segmentation data and, upon determining that a part of the boundary falls outside of an image, modify the corresponding image such that the determined part of the boundary is interpolated therein so as to improve its ability to generate accurate, reliable and high-quality three-dimensional models of luminal organs since any missing parts of the boundary of a luminal organ in the images of the luminal organ would be obtained via interpolation in order to help ensure that the continuity of the luminal organ is accurately preserved and represented in the three-dimensional model of the luminal organ. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Gulsun et al. in view of Aharon et al. in view of Balocco et al. in view of Manabe et al. with Schmitt et al. to obtain the invention as specified in claims 6 and 18.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gulsun et al. U.S. Publication No. 2019/0130578 A1 in view of Aharon et al. U.S. Publication No. 2008/0100621 A1 in view of Balocco et al. U.S. Publication No. 2012/0130243 A1 in view of Manabe et al. U.S. Publication No. 2010/0092053 A1 as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Wilson et al. U.S. Publication No. 2021/0125337 A1.
- With regards to claim 9, Gulsun et al. in view of Aharon et al. in view of Balocco et al. in view of Manabe et al. disclose the medical image processing apparatus according to claim 8, wherein the second machine learning model has been trained using a cross-sectional luminal organ image and data indicating whether an object exists on the cross-sectional luminal organ image. (Gulsun et al., Pg. 3 ¶ 0034 - 0036, Pg. 4 ¶ 0038 - 0043, Pg. 5 ¶ 0046 - 0050, Pg. 5 ¶ 0055 - Pg. 6 ¶ 0057) Gulsun et al. fail to disclose expressly using data indicating whether an object exists on a scan line of the luminal organ image at multiple angles. Pertaining to analogous art, Wilson et al. disclose wherein the second machine learning model has been trained using a cross-sectional luminal organ image and data indicating whether an object exists on a scan line of the cross-sectional luminal organ image at multiple angles. (Wilson et al., Abstract, Figs. 1 - 3, Pg. 2 ¶ 0020 - 0023, Pg. 3 ¶ 0028 - 0031, Pg. 4 ¶ 0043 - 0046, Pg. 5 ¶ 0058 - 0060, Pg. 6 ¶ 0067 - 0068, Pg. 8 ¶ 0085 - Pg. 9 ¶ 0086) Gulsun et al. in view of Aharon et al. in view of Balocco et al. in view of Manabe et al. and Wilson et al. are combinable because they are all directed towards medical image processing systems and methods that process cross-sectional images of a luminal organ. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combined teachings of Gulsun et al. in view of Aharon et al. in view of Balocco et al. in view of Manabe et al. with the teachings of Wilson et al. This modification would have been prompted in order to enhance the combined base device of Gulsun et al. in view of Aharon et al. in view of Balocco et al. in view of Manabe et al. with the well-known and applicable technique Wilson et al. applied to a comparable device. Training the second machine learning model using a cross-sectional luminal organ image and data indicating whether an object exists on a scan line of the image at multiple angles, as taught by Wilson et al., would enhance the combined base device by improving the performance of the second machine learning model to accurately and reliably detect the presence or absence of an object in images of the luminal organ, as taught and suggested by Wilson et al. who found that machine learning models trained using (r, θ) representations of data performed better than machine learning models trained using (x, y) representations of data, see at least page 5 paragraph 0058, page 7 paragraphs 0078 - 0079 and page 9 paragraph 0086 of Wilson et al. Furthermore, this modification would have been prompted by the teachings and suggestions of Gulsun et al. that annotated two-dimensional cross-sectional images are used as training data, that additional data may be utilized to train the second machine learning model and that the second machine learning model may be trained to identify different types of tissues, obstructions, calcifications and foreign objects, see at least figures 4 - 5, page 3 paragraphs 0034 - 0036, page 4 paragraphs 0038 and 0040 - 0044, page 5 paragraphs 0046 - 0050 and page 5 paragraph 0055 - page 6 paragraph 0057 of Gulsun et al. This combination could be completed according to well-known techniques in the art and would likely yield predictable results, in that the second machine learning model of the combined base device would be trained using a cross-sectional luminal organ image and data indicating whether an object exists on a scan line of the image at multiple angles so as to improve its performance with regards to detecting the presence or absence of an object in images of the luminal organ, as taught and suggested by Wilson et al., see at least page 5 paragraph 0058, page 7 paragraphs 0078 - 0079 and page 9 paragraph 0086 of Wilson et al. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Gulsun et al. in view of Aharon et al. in view of Balocco et al. in view of Manabe et al. with Wilson et al. to obtain the invention as specified in claim 9.
Claims 21 - 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gulsun et al. U.S. Publication No. 2019/0130578 A1 in view of Aharon et al. U.S. Publication No. 2008/0100621 A1 in view of Balocco et al. U.S. Publication No. 2012/0130243 A1 in view of Manabe et al. U.S. Publication No. 2010/0092053 A1 as applied to claims 1, 13 and 20 above, and further in view of Suri et al. U.S. Patent No. 6,842,638.
- With regards to claims 21, 22 and 23, Gulsun et al. in view of Aharon et al. in view of Balocco et al. in view of Manabe et al. disclose the non-transitory computer readable medium, method and medical image processing apparatus according to claims 20, 13 and 1, respectively, wherein the generated 3-D image includes one group of connected points determined as corresponding to the boundary of a main branch of the luminal organ. (Gulsun et al., Figs. 1 - 5 & 7, Pg. 2 ¶ 0021 - 0022 and 0026 - 0027, Pg. 5 ¶ 0046 - 0049 and 0051 - 0054, Pg. 6 ¶ 0057 and 0061, Pg. 7 ¶ 0069) Gulsun et al. fail to disclose expressly wherein the generated 3-D image includes one group of connected points determined as corresponding to the boundary of the side branch. Pertaining to analogous art, Suri et al. disclose wherein the generated 3-D image includes one group of connected points determined as corresponding to the boundary of the side branch and another group of connected points determined as corresponding to the boundary of a main branch of the luminal organ. (Suri et al., Abstract, Figs. 1, 5 - 6C, 23, 24 & 27 - 29, Col. 2 Lines 7 - 43, Col. 3 Line 58 - Col. 4 Line 7, Col. 8 Lines 21 - 38, Col. 8 Line 57 - Col. 9 Line 25, Col. 9 Line 42 - Col. 10 Line 14, Col. 17 Line 52 - Col. 18 Line 49, Col. 21 Line 66 - Col. 22 Line 27) Gulsun et al. in view of Aharon et al. in view of Balocco et al. in view of Manabe et al. and Suri et al. are combinable because they are all directed towards medical image processing systems and methods that process cross-sectional images of a luminal organ. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combined teachings of Gulsun et al. in view of Aharon et al. in view of Balocco et al. in view of Manabe et al. with the teachings of Suri et al. This modification would have been prompted in order to enhance the combined base device of Gulsun et al. in view of Aharon et al. in view of Balocco et al. in view of Manabe et al. with the well-known and applicable technique Suri et al. applied to a comparable device. Generating the 3-D image such that it includes one group of connected points determined as corresponding to the boundary of the side branch and another group of connected points determined as corresponding to the boundary of a main branch of the luminal organ, as taught by Suri et al., would enhance the combined base device by allowing for more complete and accurate three-dimensional models of luminal organs and/or portions of a vascular system to be generated and displayed to end-users, such as medical professionals, since boundaries of side branches would also be included in the generated and displayed three-dimensional models thereby improving the ability of the combined base device to generate complete, reliable and high-quality three-dimensional models of luminal organs that enable medical professionals to make accurate and informed medical decisions. Furthermore, this modification would have been prompted by the teachings and suggestions of Gulsun et al. that cross-sectional images may be combined to generate a three-dimensional model and that, for certain vessels, the cross-sectional images may include other vessels, see at least page 1 paragraphs 0005 - 0008 and page 2 paragraphs 0021 - 0022 and 0026 - 0027 of Gulsun et al. Moreover, this modification would have been prompted by the teachings and suggestions of Aharon et al. that their invention is directed towards segmentation and visualization of multi-branched vessels, that a 3D model can be constructed and that branch points require special handling since cross-sectional models might intersect with each other at branches and one solution to dealing with cross-sectional models that intersect with each other at branches is to take the union of intersecting surfaces, see at least page 1 paragraphs 0006 - 0010 and page 5 paragraphs 0046 - 0048 of Aharon et al. Likewise, this modification would have been prompted by the teachings and suggestions of Balocco et al. that their invention is directed towards detecting and displaying bifurcations in body lumens, see at least page 2 paragraph 0022 of Balocco et al. This combination could be completed according to well-known techniques in the art and would likely yield predictable results, in that the combined base device would generate a 3-D image that includes one group of connected points determined as corresponding to the boundary of the side branch and another group of connected points determined as corresponding to the boundary of a main branch of the luminal organ so as to enable more complete, accurate and reliable three-dimensional models of luminal organs and/or portions of a vascular system to be generated and displayed to end-users. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Gulsun et al. in view of Aharon et al. in view of Balocco et al. in view of Manabe et al. with Suri et al. to obtain the invention as specified in claims 21, 22 and 23.
- With regards to claim 24, Gulsun et al. in view of Aharon et al. in view of Balocco et al. in view of Manabe et al. disclose the medical image processing apparatus according to claim 1. Gulsun et al. fail to disclose explicitly wherein, when the side branch has been determined to be shown in one of the acquired cross-sectional images, points associated with a boundary of the side branch are not moved or removed from the generated 3-D image. Pertaining to analogous art, Suri et al. disclose wherein, when the side branch has been determined to be shown in one of the acquired cross-sectional images, points associated with a boundary of the side branch are not moved or removed from the generated 3-D image. (Suri et al., Abstract, Figs. 1, 5 - 6C, 23, 24 & 27 - 29, Col. 2 Lines 7 - 43, Col. 3 Line 58 - Col. 4 Line 7, Col. 8 Lines 21 - 38, Col. 8 Line 57 - Col. 9 Line 25, Col. 9 Line 42 - Col. 10 Line 14, Col. 17 Line 52 - Col. 18 Line 49, Col. 21 Line 66 - Col. 22 Line 27) Gulsun et al. in view of Aharon et al. in view of Balocco et al. in view of Manabe et al. and Suri et al. are combinable because they are all directed towards medical image processing systems and methods that process cross-sectional images of a luminal organ. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combined teachings of Gulsun et al. in view of Aharon et al. in view of Balocco et al. in view of Manabe et al. with the teachings of Suri et al. This modification would have been prompted in order to enhance the combined base device of Gulsun et al. in view of Aharon et al. in view of Balocco et al. in view of Manabe et al. with the well-known and applicable technique Suri et al. applied to a comparable device. Generating a 3-D image such that points associated with a boundary of the side branch are not moved or removed from the generated 3-D image, as taught by Suri et al., would enhance the combined base device by would enhance the combined base device by allowing for more complete and accurate three-dimensional models of luminal organs and/or portions of a vascular system to be generated and displayed to end-users, such as medical professionals, since points associated with boundaries of side branches would also be included in the generated and displayed three-dimensional models thereby improving the ability of the combined base device to generate complete, reliable and high-quality three-dimensional models of luminal organs that enable medical professionals to make accurate and informed medical decisions. Furthermore, this modification would have been prompted by the teachings and suggestions of Gulsun et al. that cross-sectional images may be combined to generate a three-dimensional model and that, for certain vessels, the cross-sectional images may include other vessels, see at least page 1 paragraphs 0005 - 0008 and page 2 paragraphs 0021 - 0022 and 0026 - 0027 of Gulsun et al. Moreover, this modification would have been prompted by the teachings and suggestions of Aharon et al. that their invention is directed towards segmentation and visualization of multi-branched vessels, that a 3D model can be constructed and that branch points require special handling since cross-sectional models might intersect with each other at branches and one solution to dealing with cross-sectional models that intersect with each other at branches is to take the union of intersecting surfaces, see at least page 1 paragraphs 0006 - 0010 and page 5 paragraphs 0046 - 0048 of Aharon et al. Likewise, this modification would have been prompted by the teachings and suggestions of Balocco et al. that their invention is directed towards detecting and displaying bifurcations in body lumens, see at least page 2 paragraph 0022 of Balocco et al. This combination could be completed according to well-known techniques in the art and would likely yield predictable results, in that the combined base device would generate a 3-D image such that points associated with a boundary of the side branch are not moved or removed from the generated 3-D image so as to enable more complete, accurate and reliable three-dimensional models of luminal organs and/or portions of a vascular system to be generated and displayed to end-users. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Gulsun et al. in view of Aharon et al. in view of Balocco et al. in view of Manabe et al. with Suri et al. to obtain the invention as specified in claim 24.
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 ERIC RUSH whose telephone number is (571) 270-3017. The examiner can normally be reached 9am - 5pm Monday - Friday.
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, Andrew Bee can be reached at (571) 270 - 5183. 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.
/ERIC RUSH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2677
