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
Claims 51-58 have been amended.
Claims 68-74 have been newly added.
Claims 59-60 have been cancelled.
Claims 51-58, and 68-74 are still pending for consideration.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s election with traverse of group II, claims 51-60, is acknowledged. Applicant argues that the restriction requirement fails to establish a serious search for examination burden because the searches for group I and Group II allegedly substantially overlap. The argument has been considered but is not persuasive.
Group I, claims 12-13, and 25-27, is directed to an artificial-neural-network training and inference invention. The claims require, inter alia, assembling a corpus of procedural data set including CT scans, identification of vertebrae in which screws have been inserted, and the screw-descriptive data; training an ANN using the corpus; supplying a further CT scan to the trained ANN; and generating a 3D vertebra/screw representation in response to the ANN output.
Group II, claims 51-60, is instead directed to a multiplanar medical-image generation and interactive manipulation. The claims require generating first, second and third 2D views from a 3D anatomy scan and rotating one or more of those views, including limitations directed to respective view normal, axial/sagittal/coronal slices, DRR, translation, and user-controlled rotation.
Accordingly, examination of Group I requires searching art directed to machine learning training, ANN inference, surgical-planning models, training corpora, vertebral screw-placement data, and model-generated surgical planning output, whereas examination Group II requires searching art directed to multiplanar reconstruction, cross-sectional medical-image display, orthogonal image planes, rotation of 2D slice view, view normal, DRR generation, and interactive medical-image user interfaces.
The fact that both groups generally involve medical imaging, CT data, or spinal procedures does not eliminate the serious search burden because those common features are broad contextual features, whereas the respective claimed inventive subject matter requires materially different search strategies and art field.
Accordingly, applicants’ traverse is not persuasive. The restriction requirement is maintained and is hereby made Final.
Applicant’s arguments regarding independent claim 1 amendment 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.
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 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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim 51-56, 58, 68-71, and 74 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yanof et al. (US 5734384 A) in view of Mussack et al. (US 7496222 B2).
Regarding claim 51, Yanof et al. teaches a method comprising: accessing a three--dimensional (3D) anatomy scan of a human subject (see Abstract; “A CT scanner non-invasively examines a volumetric region and generates voxel values. A user adjustable 3D axis system defines mutually orthogonal sections and volume reprojections thus defining a cross reference relation between them”); defining a first two-dimensional (2D) view of the 3D anatomy scan, a second 2D view of the 3D anatomy scan, and a third 2D view of the 3D anatomy scan to provide an initial view of an area of interest of the human subject (see Abstract; “A CT scanner non-invasively examines a volumetric region and generates voxel values. A user adjustable 3D axis system defines mutually orthogonal sections and volume reprojections thus defining a cross reference relation between them”, see also claim 11; “the voxel values corresponding to the defined mutually orthogonal planes being supplied to the image processor which converts the voxel values corresponding to the section planes into image values which are displayed as section images on the two-dimensional display”, and see col. 11, lines 57-60; “The section defining means 102 includes a first section defining means 104, a second section defining means 106, and a third section defining means 108 to define three mutually orthogonal planes or slices”), wherein: the first, second and third 2D views are generated from the 3D anatomy scan (see col. 2, lines 50-55; “a volume object memory means is provided for holding data values indicative of each voxel of a volumetric region of the object”, see also col. 6, lines 32-38; “the projected coordinate axes have been rotated so that the sectional planes in view ports 32 and 34 intersect the vessel longitudinally. This causes axis 38 to reside medially within the vessel and causes axes 40 and 42 to reference the transverse vascular view. View ports 32 and 34 illustrate slices along planes defined by axes (38, 42) and (38, 40), respectively, in the other images”, and col. 3, lines 7-10; “The video processor means receives data values from the object memory lying along each of the planes and converts them into a corresponding video image”, Note: volumetric region stored as voxels in object memory implies 3D anatomy scan, video processor extracting data values along planes implies generating 2D views and View ports 32, 34 (longitudinal) and the transverse view corresponding to first, second and third 2D views), and the first, second, and third 2D views define respective first, second, and third normal (see col. 3, lines 32-38; “the relationship(s) among the volume reprojection view(s) and the sectional views can be fixed by a user adjustable 3-D coordinate-system whereby each of the three axes can represent both a viewing direction and a plane section normal vector”); presenting the first, second, and third 2D views of the 3D anatomy scan within a display (see col. 2, lines 10-13; “the transverse, coronal, or sagittal sections or views to be displayed concurrently in different view ports on the same screen”); obtaining a user instruction to manipulate at least one of the first, second, and third 2D views of the 3D anatomy scan (see claim 2; “an operator control including the cursor position control for selectively rotating and translating the volume reprojection and section images”, see also claim 21; “wherein the rotating step includes using the cursor to drag the axes to effect the rotation”). However, Yanof et al. does not teach and rotating, based on the user instruction, at least one of the first, second, and third 2D views of the 3D anatomy scan with respect to only one other normal of the first, second, and third normals so as to provide first view of the area of interest of the human subject, wherein the first view is different from the initial view of the area of interest of the human subject.
In the same field of endeavor, Mussack et al. teaches and rotating, based on the user instruction, at least one of the first, second, and third 2D views of the 3D anatomy scan with respect to only one other normal of the first, second, and third normals so as to provide first view of the area of interest of the human subject, wherein the first view is different from the initial view of the area of interest of the human subject. (see col. 7, lines 31-41; “each of the viewports displayed by display routine 640 may be linked so that a control line in one viewport controls the angle of display or angle of cross-section in another 2D image or stack of images displayed in another viewport first viewport 120 may be linked to second viewport 130 and second viewport 130 may be linked to final viewport 110 so that movement of first control line 122 in first viewport 120 controls the angle of display of a 2D image displayed in second viewport 130, and movement of second control line 132 controls the angle of display of a 2D image displayed in final viewport 110”, see also col. 10, lines 56-59; “any movement of control line 132 in second control viewport 130 does not affect the image or control line 122 displayed in the previous first control viewport 120. Any control line 132 movement only affects the display of images in subsequent control viewports and in final viewport 110”, and col. 8, lines 60-62; “Rotational control markings 128, 138 can be used to aid a user in rotating a control line”, and col. 5, lines 63+; “control line 122 in first control viewport 120 may represent the 2D image plane of a 3D volume displayed in second control viewport 130 and control line 132 in second control viewport 130 may represent the 2D image plane of the 3D volume displayed in final viewport 110”). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify a method of cross-referenced sectioning and reprojection of diagnostic image volumes Yanof et al. in view of a method for simultaneously modifying angles of cross-sections of images of a 3D volume of Mussack et al. in order to generate a more efficient method for obtaining a view through multiple cross-sections of an image (see col. 7, lines 31-41).
Regarding claim 52, the rejection of claim 51 is incorporated herein.
Yanof et al. in the combination further teach wherein rotating, based on the user instruction, at least one of the first, second, and third 2D views (see col. 3, lines 36-38; “whereby each of the three axes can represent both a viewing direction and a plane section normal vector”, see also col. 7, lines 15+; “each of the three slice images is orthogonal to one of the axes… For example, if axis 38 is rotated about axis 42”).
Mussack et al. in the combination further teach comprises rotating, based on the user instruction, the first 2Dview of the 3D anatomy scan about one of the second normal and the third normal (see col. 7, lines 33-35; “a control line in one viewport controls the angle of display or angle of cross-section in another 2D image or stack of images displayed in another viewport”).
Regarding claim 53, the rejection of claim 51 is incorporated herein.
Mussack et al. in the combination further teach wherein rotating, based on the user instruction, at least one of the first, second, and third 2D views comprises rotating, based on the user instruction, the first 2Dview of the 3D anatomy scan about the second normal and the third normal (see col. 3, lines 41-41; “a system for simultaneously modifying one or more angles of display or angles of cross-section”, see also col. 8, lines 6-8; “a user of system 600 may repeatedly move multiple control lines in multiple viewports”).
Regarding claim 54, the rejection of claim 51 is incorporated herein.
Yanof et al. et al. in the combination further teach wherein; the first 2D view is a first 2D slice of the 3D anatomy scan, the second 2D view is a second 2D slice of the 3D anatomy scan, and the third 2D view is a third 2D slices of the 3D anatomy scan (see col. 1, lines 37-39; “to generate CT numbers corresponding to each of a three-dimensional array of voxels”, see also col. 5,lines 31-33; “an orthogonal multi-planar reformatted tri-section through the adjustable origin of the coordinate system”, and col. 7, lines 14-15; “each of the three slice images is orthogonal to one of the axes”, and col. 3, lines 7-8; “receives data values from the object memory lying along each of the planes”).
Regarding claim 55, the rejection of claim 51 is incorporated herein.
Yanof et al. et al. in the combination further teach wherein; the first 2D views of the 3D anatomy scan is an are axial, sagittal, and coronal views of the human subject, the second 2D view of the 3D anatomy scan is a sagittal view of the human subject, and the third 2D view of the 3D anatomy scan is a coronal view of the human subject (see col. 2, lines 10-12; “the transverse, coronal, or sagittal sections or views to be displayed concurrently in different view ports on the same screen”).
Regarding claim 56, the rejection of claim 51 is incorporated herein.
Yanof et al. further teach wherein the 3D anatomy scan is a Computerized Tomography (CT) scan (see Abstract; “A CT scanner non-invasively examines a volumetric region and generates voxel values”).
Regarding claim 58, the rejection of claim 51 is incorporated herein.
Yanof et al. further teach further comprising translating based on the user instruction at least one of the first, second, and third 2D views of the 3D anatomy scan so as to provide second view of the area of interest the human subject (see Abstract; “translation of the projected crossed cursors are reverse affine transformed to rotate and translate the axis system”, see also col. 6, lines 5-7; “the three-dimensional object data to generate a video display D in accordance with instructions input by the operator on an operator control console or system E”), wherein the second view of the area of interest is different from the initial view of the area of interest and the first view of the area of interest (see col. 2, lines 5-13; “The selected coronal plane would then be displayed. The operator would then position the cursor on the displayed coronal plane to select a sagittal or (y,z) plane. Prior art medical image workstations commonly permitted the transverse, coronal, or sagittal sections or views to be displayed concurrently in different view ports on the same screen”).
Regarding claim 68, the rejection of claim 54 is incorporated herein.
Yanof et al. et al. in the combination further teach wherein: the third 2D slice of the 3D anatomy scan is intersected by the first 2D slice of the 3D anatomy scan at a first intersection line and is intersected by the second 2D slice of the 3D anatomy scan at a second intersection line, the first 2D slice of the 3D anatomy scan is intersected by the second 2D slice of the 3D anatomy scan at the second intersection line and is intersected by the third 2D slice of the 3D anatomy scan at a third intersection line, and the second 2D slice of the 3D anatomy scan is intersected by the first 2D slice of the 3D anatomy scan at the first intersection line and is intersected by the third 2D slice of the 3D anatomy scan at the third intersection line (see col. 11, lines 57-60; “The section defining means 102 includes a first section defining means 104, a second section defining means 106, and a third section defining means 108 to define three mutually orthogonal planes or slices”, see also col. 7, lines 49-50; “If the coordinate system is adjusted such that two of the section planes intersect along a line”, Note: three mutually orthogonal planes passing through the same coordinate-system origin necessarily produce three pairwise intersection lines: first/second, first/third, and second/third).
Regarding claim 69, the rejection of claim 54 is incorporated herein.
Yanof et al. et al. in the combination further teach wherein the first 2D slice, the second 2D slice, and the third 2D slice of the 3D anatomy scan, intersect at a common intersection point (see claim 2; “the origin represents both a point common to the section planes”, see also col. 3, lines 2-4; “A plane section defining means defines mutually orthogonal planes which intersect at the origin of the user adjustable coordinate system”).
Regarding claim 70, the rejection of claim 58 is incorporated herein.
Yanof et al. et al. in the combination further teach wherein the user instruction comprises a first instruction to translate at least one of the first, second, and third 2D views of the 3D anatomy scan independently (see col. 3, lines 42-46; “the operator can adjust the orientation and position of planar section views ….. by translating the projected origin cursor”, see also col. 11, lines 52-56; “A linkage coupling/decoupling means 100 selectively interconnects the operator controls …. This enables the adjustments of the reprojection and section images to be linked or not linked to the user-adjustable axes”, and claim 2; “selectively rotating and translating the volume reprojection and section images”).
Regarding claim 71, the rejection of claim 51 is incorporated herein.
Yanof et al. et al. in the combination further teach wherein the user instruction comprises a first instruction to rotate at least one of the first, second, and third 2D views of the 3D anatomy scan independently (see claim 2; “unlinked such that the section and volume reprojection images are rotated independently of each other”).
Regarding claim 74, the rejection of claim 51 is incorporated herein.
Yanof et al. et al. in the combination further teach wherein: the first 2D view is a first plane of the 3D anatomy scan, the second 2D view is a second plane orthogonal to the first plane of the 3D anatomy scan, and the third 2D view is a third plane orthogonal to the first plane and the second plane of the 3D anatomy scan (see col. 11, lines 57-60; “The section defining means 102 includes a first section defining means 104, a second section defining means 106, and a third section defining means 108 to define three mutually orthogonal planes or slices”, see also col. 5, lines 31-33; “an orthogonal multi-planar reformatted tri-section through the adjustable origin of the coordinate system”).
Claims 57 and 73 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yanof et al. in view of Mussack et al. as applied in clim 51 above, and further in view of Frank et al. (US 20040215071 A1).
Regarding claim 57, the rejection of claim 51 is incorporated herein. The combination of Yanof et al. and Mussack et al. as a whole does not teach wherein at least one of the first 2D view the scan, the second 2D view of the scan, and the third 2D view of the scan is a digitally reconstructed radiograph (DRR).
In the same field of endeavor, Frank et al. teaches wherein at least one of the first 2D view of the 3D anatomy scan, the second 2D view of the 3D anatomy scan, and the third 2D view of the 3D anatomy scan is a digitally reconstructed radiograph (DRR) (see para [0054]; “The DRR is essentially a 2D image taken from a 3D volume where a view through the 3D volume is generated by looking through your 3D volume from the proper orientation or perspective, to create a line for every pixel”). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify a method of cross-referenced sectioning and reprojection of diagnostic image volumes Yanof et al. in view of a method for simultaneously modifying angles of cross-sections of images of a 3D volume of Mussack et al. and a method and apparatus for performing 2D to 3D registration of Frank et al. in order to align the two-dimensional image with the digitally reconstructed radiograph using a similarity/cost measure (see para [0054]).
Regarding claim 73, the rejection of claim 51 is incorporated herein.
Frank et al. et al. in the combination further teach wherein: the first 2D view is a first X-ray view of the 3D anatomy scan, the second 2D view is a second X-ray view of the 3D anatomy scan, and the third 2D view is a third X-ray view of the 3D anatomy scan (see para [0046]; “digitally reconstructed radiographs (DRRs) are created from the CT scan” see also para [0054]; “The DRR is essentially a 2D image taken from a 3D volume”, and para [0055]; “any two images along any two planes may be used to create the DRRs As shown in FIG. 11”). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify a method of cross-referenced sectioning and reprojection of diagnostic image volumes Yanof et al. in view of a method for simultaneously modifying angles of cross-sections of images of a 3D volume of Mussack et al. and a method for performing 2D to 3D registration includes an initialization step and a refinement step of Frank et al. in order to register the 2D image to the 3D volume (see para [0034]).
Claim 72 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yanof et al. in view of Mussack et al. as applied in clim 51 above, and further in view of Beaulieu et al. (US 20020091659 A1).
Regarding claim 72, the rejection of claim 51 is incorporated herein. The combination of Yanof et al. and Mussack et al. as a whole does not teach wherein: the 3D anatomy scan is a Computerized Tomography (CT) scan generated from a Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine (DICOM) file, and the user instruction comprises adjustments of Hounsfield Unit (HU) values of the DICOM file.
In the same field of endeavor, Beaulieu et al. teach wherein: the 3D anatomy scan is a Computerized Tomography (CT) scan generated from a Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine (DICOM) file, and the user instruction comprises adjustments of Hounsfield Unit (HU) values of the DICOM file (see para [0034]; “a CT study of the chest to display pulmonary nodules would require display at "lung" W/L settings, represented typically by 1500/-500 W/L settings in Hounsfield units…. The present invention provides for interactive manipulation of W/L, allowing a user to adjust the image display”, see also Abstract; “provided that shows the conversion of a DICOM format medical image so that it could be displayed and viewed on a personal digital assistant”). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify a method of cross-referenced sectioning and reprojection of diagnostic image volumes Yanof et al. in view of a method for simultaneously modifying angles of cross-sections of images of a 3D volume of Mussack et al. and method for viewing medical images on a handheld computer of Beaulieu et al. in order one to obtain, view and analyze medical images completely wireless and mobile on a personalized handheld computer (see para [0034]).
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 WINTA GEBRESLASSIE whose telephone number is (571)272-3475. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday9:00-5:00.
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 571-270-5180. 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.
/WINTA GEBRESLASSIE/ Examiner, Art Unit 2677
