DETAILED ACTION
Contents
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 2
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 2
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 3
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 5
Conclusion 8
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 .
This action is responsive to applicant’s claim set received on 4/8/24. Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter as follows. Regarding claims 1 and 11, the limitations recite an abstract idea in the realm of a mental process, with no clear practical application nor significantly more. Regarding claims 2-10, 12-20, are similar in regards the dependent claims recite an abstract idea, with no clear practical application nor reciting any limitations that are significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless - (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.(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 1-3, 8, 11-13, 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Penenberg et al (US 2014/0378828 A1). Regarding claim 1, Penenberg discloses a computerized method for annotating imaging scans for use in surgery, the method comprising: receiving, from a communication device, an image, wherein the image contains a visual representation of an area of a body of a patient (see 0024, 0028, 0037); displaying, via a graphical user interface on a computing device, the image (see 0026); providing to a user, via the graphical user interface on the computing device, a set of graphical tools 9see 029, 0032), wherein the set of graphical tools allow the user to annotate the image (see 0032, 0065); receiving an annotation, based at least in part on input to the graphical user interface (see 0031, 0039), wherein the annotation relates to one or more portions of anatomy appearing in the image 9see 00472, 0043, 0044); applying the annotation to the image in a manner such that the annotation is aligned with a portion of anatomy appearing in the image (see 0042, 0043, 0068).
Regarding claims 2-3, Penenberg discloses an x-ray image (see 0019, 0024);
area of the body of a patient is one or more hips of the patient (see 0036-0037).
Regarding claim 8, Penenberg discloses the step of using the image as augmented by the annotation to properly align the one or more portions of the anatomy of the patient (see 0033, 0042, 0068).
Regarding claim 11, Penenberg discloses a computerized system for annotating imaging scans for use in surgery, the system, comprising: one or more hardware processors configured by machine readable instructions to (see 0080-0083): receive, from a communication device, an image (see 0024, 0085-0086), wherein the image contains a visual representation of an area of a body of a patient (see 0028, 0037); and display, via a graphical user interface, the image (see 0026, 0084); provide to a user, via the graphical user interface, a set of graphical tools (see 0029, 0032), wherein the set of graphical tools allow the user to annotate the image (see 0032, 0065); receive an annotation, based at least in part on input to the graphical user interface (see 0039, 0042), wherein the annotation relates to one or more portions of anatomy appearing in the image (see 0042-0044); apply the annotation to the image in a manner such that the annotation is aligned with a portion of anatomy appearing in the image (see 0042, 0046-0047).
Regarding claims 12-13, 18, the claim are analyzed as a system that implement the limitations of 2-3, 8, respectively (see rejection of claims 2-3, 8).
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 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 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 claimedinvention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 4-7, 9-10, 14-17, 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Penenberg et al (US 2014/0378828 A1) in view of Li et al (IVP: “Deep Learning-Based Automatic Diagnosis System for Developmental Dysplasia of the Hip”).
Regarding claims 4-7, Penenberg teaches all elements as mentioned above in claim 3. Penenberg does not teach expressly one or more portions of the anatomy is selected from the group, comprising: an ilium, an ischium, a pubis, a femoral head, an acetabulum, a femoral neck, a greater trochanter, a lesser trochanter, and a pelvic line;
generating, via an artificial intelligence or machine learning powered module enabled with image analysis capabilities, one or more annotations for the one or more portions of the anatomy;
identifying, via the artificial intelligence or machine learning powered module enabled with image analysis capabilities, the one or more portions of the anatomy, and potential medical defects appearing in the image related to the one or more portions of the anatomy;
machine learning models trained on various amounts of test and training data, neural networks, artificial neural networks (ANN), convolution neural networks (CNN), recurrent neural networks (RNN), deep learning models and deep-learning-based generative models, and generative adversarial networks (GANs).
Li, in the same field of endeavor, teaches one or more portions of the anatomy is selected from the group, comprising: an ilium, an ischium, a pubis, a femoral head, an acetabulum, a femoral neck, a greater trochanter, a lesser trochanter, and a pelvic line (see section III.A);
generating, via an artificial intelligence or machine learning powered module enabled with image analysis capabilities, one or more annotations for the one or more portions of the anatomy (see abstract);
identifying, via the artificial intelligence or machine learning powered module enabled with image analysis capabilities, the one or more portions of the anatomy, and potential medical defects appearing in the image related to the one or more portions of the anatomy (see introduction);
machine learning models trained on various amounts of test and training data, neural networks, artificial neural networks (ANN), convolution neural networks (CNN), recurrent neural networks (RNN), deep learning models and deep-learning-based generative models, and generative adversarial networks (GANs) (see section III.B).
It would have been obvious (before the effective filing date of the claimed invention) or (at the time the invention was made) to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Penenberg to utilize the cited limitations as suggested by Li. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to enable the reliable and explainable support for clinical decision-making (see abstract) . Furthermore, the prior art collectively includes each element claimed (though not all in the same reference), and one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements in the manner explained above using known engineering design, interface and/or programming techniques, without changing a “fundamental” operating principle of Penenberg, while the teaching of Li continues to perform the same function as originally taught prior to being combined, in order to produce the repeatable and predictable result. It is for at least the aforementioned reasons that the examiner has reached a conclusion of obviousness with respect to the claim in question.
Regarding claims 9-10, Penenberg teaches all elements as mentioned above in claim 1. Penenberg does not teach expressly identifying, via an image analysis module, a plurality of anatomical components in the image; placing annotations on the image associated with each of the plurality of anatomical components;
an ilium, an ischium, a pubis, a femoral head, an acetabulum, a femoral neck, a greater trochanter, a lesser trochanter, and a pelvic line.
Li, in the same field of endeavor, teaches identifying, via an image analysis module, a plurality of anatomical components in the image; placing annotations on the image associated with each of the plurality of anatomical components (see abstract);
an ilium, an ischium, a pubis, a femoral head, an acetabulum, a femoral neck, a greater trochanter, a lesser trochanter, and a pelvic line (see methods).
It would have been obvious (before the effective filing date of the claimed invention) or (at the time the invention was made) to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Penenberg to utilize the cited limitations as suggested by Li. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to enable the reliable and explainable support for clinical decision-making (see abstract) . Furthermore, the prior art collectively includes each element claimed (though not all in the same reference), and one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements in the manner explained above using known engineering design, interface and/or programming techniques, without changing a “fundamental” operating principle of Penenberg, while the teaching of Li continues to perform the same function as originally taught prior to being combined, in order to produce the repeatable and predictable result. It is for at least the aforementioned reasons that the examiner has reached a conclusion of obviousness with respect to the claim in question.
Regarding claims 14-17, the claim are analyzed as a system that implement the limitations of 4-7, respectively (see rejection of claims 4-7).
Regarding claims 19-20 the claim are analyzed as a system that implement the limitations of 9-10, respectively (see rejection of claims 9-10).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDWARD PARK. The examiner’s contact information is as follows:
Telephone: (571)270-1576 | Fax: 571.270.2576 | Edward.Park@uspto.gov
For email communications, please notate MPEP 502.03, which outlines procedures pertaining to communications via the internet and authorization. A sample authorization form is cited within MPEP 502.03, section II.
The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9-6 CST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Andrew Moyer, can be reached on (571) 272-9523. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/EDWARD PARK/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2666
Prosecution Insights