Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
because the application claims two or more distinct inventions. The inventions are grouped as follows:
Group I. Claims 12-13, and 25-27 drawn to an artificial-neural-network based surgical-planning invention in which corpus of prior producer datasets is assembled, an ANN is trained using the corpus, a further CT scan is input to the trained ANN, and a 3D image including a vertebra and screw representation is rendered and presented. Claim 12 recites this invention in method form, and claim 25 recites the same invention in apparatus form with a display and processor configured to perform the same ANN-based operations, classified in G06N3/02, G06N3/08, and A61B34/10.
Group II. Claims 51-60 drawn to a 3D anatomy scan visualization/view-manipulation invention in which a first, second, and third 2D view are generated from a 3D anatomy scan to provide an initial view of an area of interest, and at last one of the views is rotated to provide an improved view of the area of interest, classified in A61B90/36, A61B6/5223, A61B6/461, A61B6/463. See MPEP § 806.05(h).
Inventions I and II are related as process and apparatus for its practice. The inventions are distinct if it can be shown that either: (1) the process as claimed can be practiced by another and materially different apparatus or by hand, or (2) the apparatus as claimed can be used to practice another and materially different process. Here the method of claim 12, and the apparatus of claim 25 are treated as a single group for the purpose of this requirement because both are drawn to the same ANN-based planning concept. (MPEP § 806.05(e)).
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all the inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply:
⦁ the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art in view of their different classification
⦁ the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art due to their recognized divergent subject matter
⦁ the inventions require a different field of search (e.g., searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search strategies or search queries).
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of an invention to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected invention.
The election of an invention may be made with or without traverse. To reserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
During a telephone conversation with Attorney Nicholas Transier on March 23, 2026, applicant provisionally elect Group II claims 51-60 with traverse, for the purpose of prosecution. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 12-13, and claims 25-27 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention with traverse.
Applicant’s provisional oral election with traverse is acknowledged. If applicant wishes to maintain the traverse, the reply must include specific reasons why applicant believes the restriction requirement is in error. If applicant does not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed error in the restriction requirement, the election will be treated as without traverse.
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 (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 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.
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 51, 54-56, and 58 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Yanof et al. (US 5734384 A).
Regarding claim 51, Yanof et al. teaches a method comprising: accessing a three-dimensional (3D) anatomy scan of a human subject; defining a first two-dimensional (2D) view the scan, a second 2D view of the scan, and a third 2D view of the 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”), wherein the first, second and third 2D views are generated from the scan (see col. 10, lines 57-59; “A reprojection processor 78 reprojects 2-D reprojection images from the volume image data along a selected viewing direction”); and rotating at least one of the first, second, and third 2D views so as to provide an improved view of the area of interest (see Abstract; “An affine transform translates and rotates the axis system from object space to image space whereby each axis defines the orientation of origin intersecting sections in one view port and the viewing direction of volume reprojections in another view port”, see also col. 7, lines 17-23; “The slice images are rotatable about the origin …. As the projected coordinate system is rotated about one axis, the other two axis and hence the other two planar sections are re-oriented in their intersection the volume, then projected to be co-planar with screen”).
Regarding claim 54, the rejection of claim 51 is incorporated herein.
Yanof et al. further teach wherein the 2D views are 2D slices of the scan (see col. 7, lines 14-18; “each of the three slice images is orthogonal to one of the axes, and parallel with two of the axis, and intersects the origin. The slice images are rotatable about the origin and the axis which is perpendicular to each of the slice images”, see also col. 17, lines 44-49; “the voxel values corresponding to the defined orthogonal sections 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”).
Regarding claim 55, the rejection of claim 51 is incorporated herein.
Yanof et al. further teach wherein the 2D views are axial, sagittal, and coronal views of the human subject (see col. 5, lines 63-66; “The volumetric region is defined by x, y, and z-coordinates which are defined in terms of a transverse plane, coronal plane, and sagittal plane of a patient or other examined object”).
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 wherein the method further comprises translating at least one of the first, second, and third 2D views so as to provide an improved view of the area of interest (see Abstract; “translation of the projected crossed cursors are reverse affine transformed to rotate and translate the axis system”).
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 52 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yanof et al. in view of Lin et al. (US 20230115934 A1).
Regarding claim 52, the rejection of claim 51 is incorporated herein. Yanof et al. does not teach wherein the first, second and third 2D views define respective first, second and third normals thereto, and wherein rotating the at least one of the first, second, and third 2D views comprises rotating the first view about one of the second normal and the third normal.
In the same field of endeavor, Lin et al. teaches wherein the first, second and third 2D views define respective first, second and third normals thereto (see para [0061]; “Respective normal directions of the one or more two-dimensional images are the same as the viewing angle direction, and each of the one or more two-dimensional images is inclined to one of a coronal plane, a sagittal plane and an axial plane”), and wherein rotating the at least one of the first, second, and third 2D views comprises rotating the first view about one of the second normal and the third normal (see para [0068]; “an intersection line (i.e., a rotation axis) between the plane PF1 and the coronal plane P1 is parallel to a normal direction of the sagittal plane”). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling day of the invention to modify a method of cross-referenced sectioning and reprojection of diagnostic image volumes of Yanof et al. in view of a surgical navigation method of Lin et al. in order to guide a movement of a virtual surgical instrument into the two-dimensional superimposed image (see para [0061]).
Claims 53, and 60 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yanof et al. in view of Lin et al. and further in view of Mussack et al. (US 20060291717 A1).
Regarding claim 53, the rejection of claim 51 is incorporated herein. Yanof et al. does not teach wherein the first, second and third 2D views define respective first, second and third normals thereto, and wherein rotating the at least one of the first, second, and third 2D views comprises rotating the first view about the second normal and the third normal.
In the same field of endeavor, Lin et al. teaches wherein the first, second and third 2D views define respective first, second and third normals thereto (see para [0061]; “Respective normal directions of the one or more two-dimensional images are the same as the viewing angle direction, and each of the one or more two-dimensional images is inclined to one of a coronal plane, a sagittal plane and an axial plane”). 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 surgical navigation method of Lin et al. in order to guide a movement of a virtual surgical instrument into the two-dimensional superimposed image (see para [0061]). However, the combination of Yonof et al. and Lin et al. as a whole does not teach and wherein rotating the at least one of the first, second, and third 2D views comprises rotating the first view about the second normal and the third normal.
In the same field of endeavor, Mussack et al. and wherein rotating the at least one of the first, second, and third 2D views comprises rotating the first view about the second normal and the third normal (see para [0021]; “a system for simultaneously modifying one or more angles of display”, see also para [0016]; “adjusting a first angle of display of a second 2D image and a second angle of display of a final 2D image simultaneous with moving the first control line”). 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 surgical navigation method of Lin et al. and further 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 para [0021]).
Regarding claim 60, the rejection of claim 51 is incorporated herein.
Lin et al. in the combination further teach wherein the first, second and third 2D views define respective first, second and third normal (see para [0061]; “Respective normal directions of the one or more two-dimensional images are the same as the viewing angle direction, and each of the one or more two-dimensional images is inclined to one of a coronal plane, a sagittal plane and an axial plane”).
Mussack et al. in the combination further teaches and wherein each 2D view of the first, second, and third 2D views may be rotated with respect to only one other normal of the first, second and third normal (see para [0014]; “moving a control line in a selected viewport, and altering an angle of cross-section of at least one of the 2D images in at least one viewport other than the selected viewport simultaneous with the step of moving the control line”).
Claim 57 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yanof et al. in view of Frank et al. (US 20040215071 A1).
Regarding claim 57, the rejection of claim 51 is incorporated herein. Yanof et al. 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 the scan, the second 2D view of the scan, and the third 2D view of the 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 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]).
Claim 59 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yanof et al. in view of Mussack et al.
Regarding claim 59, the rejection of claim 51 is incorporated herein. Yanof et al. does not teach wherein the rotating is performed following a user instruction.
In the same field of endeavor, Mussack et al. teach wherein the rotating is performed following a user instruction (see para [0054]; “the user may move the input device and cause the corresponding control line to rotate”, see also para [0062]; “by a user selecting the line 122 with an input device such as a mouse or stylus and moving line 122 in viewport 120)”). 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 navigate any type of implant including orthopedic implants or any other devices implanted in a patient (see para [0054]).
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights