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 .
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.
[1] Claims 1, 2, 9, 14, 15 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Serlie [US 9,947,136].
Regarding claim 1, Serlie meets the claim limitations as follows:
A method for processing medical image information [abstract], comprising: generating a first intensity distribution for a first image region (i.e. A) [fig. 5]; generating a second intensity distribution for a second image region (i.e. B) [fig. 5]; calculating values based on the first and second intensity distributions (i.e. for each region A and B the window width and window level are calculated based on the distribution of A and B) [fig. 5; col. 9, l. 64-col. 10, l. 10 and col. 10, ll. 50-62]; and automatically determining a custom viewing window based on the calculated values (i.e. for each region A and B the window width and window level define the custom viewing window) [fig. 5; col. 9, l. 64-col. 10, l. 10 and col. 10, ll. 50-62], wherein the custom viewing window is determined to display the first image region and the second image region (i.e. for each region A and B the window width and window level define the custom viewing window which allow to display each region) [col. 11, ll. 51-61].
Regarding claim 2, Serlie meets the claim limitations as follows:
The method of claim 1, wherein determining the custom viewing window includes determining one or more parameters of the custom viewing window (i.e. for each region A and B the window width and window level define the custom viewing window) [fig. 5; col. 9, l. 64-col. 10, l. 10 and col. 10, ll. 50-62].
Regarding claim 9, Serlie meets the claim limitations as follows:
The method of claim 1, wherein the first image region and the second image region are in a same image (i.e. regions A and B are from 300) [fig. 4; col. 9, l. 54 to col. 10, l. 10].
Regarding claims 14, 15 and 20, all limitation are similarly analyzed as claims 1 and 9.
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.
[2] Claims 3-8 and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Serlie [US 9,947,136] in view Klotz [US 2002/0151780].
Regarding claim 3-8, Serlie meets the claim limitations as set forth in claim 2 and also teaches:
5. The method of claim 3, wherein the one or more parameters of the custom viewing window increase recognition of differences between the first and second image regions over a viewing window used to display the first and second image regions using one or more other parameters (i.e. for each region A and B the window width and window level define the custom viewing window which allow to display each region) [col. 11, ll. 51-61].
6. The method of claim 3, wherein the one or more parameters includes at least one of a width or a level of the custom viewing window (i.e. for each region A and B the window width and window level define the custom viewing window) [fig. 5; col. 9, l. 64-col. 10, l. 10 and col. 10, ll. 50-62].
Serlie does not explicitly disclose the following claim limitations:
3. The method of claim 2, wherein determining the one or more parameters includes computing the one or more parameters based on difference values calculated between the first and second intensity distributions.
4. The method of claim 3, wherein determining the one or more parameters includes applying at least one rule to the difference values to determine the one or more parameters.
5. The method of claim 3, wherein the one or more parameters of the custom viewing window increase recognition of differences between the first and second image regions over a viewing window used to display the first and second image regions using one or more other parameters
7. The method of claim 6, wherein the width is based upon a maximum intensity value in the difference values for which the difference value is non-zero and a minimum intensity value in the difference values for which the difference value is non-zero.
8. The method of claim 1, wherein the values calculated based on the first and second intensity distributions include difference values between the first and second intensity distributions.
However, in the same field of endeavor Klotz discloses the deficient claim limitations, as follows:
3. The method of claim 2, wherein determining the one or more parameters includes computing the one or more parameters based on difference (i.e. HS) values calculated between the first (i.e. H1) and second (i.e. H2) intensity distributions [paras. 0056-0058].
4. The method of claim 3, wherein determining the one or more parameters includes applying at least one rule to the difference values to determine the one or more parameters (i.e. creating a distribution HS based on differences between H1 and H2) [paras. 0056-0058].
7. The method of claim 6, wherein the width (i.e. HD width from 0 to 100) is based upon a maximum intensity value in the difference values for which the difference value is non-zero (i.e. positive values of HD) and a minimum intensity value in the difference values for which the difference value is non-zero (i.e. negative values of HD) [fig. 9, HS is mislabeled as HD in fig. 9].
8. The method of claim 1, wherein the values calculated based on the first and second intensity distributions include difference values between the first and second intensity distributions (i.e. creating a distribution HS based on differences between H1 and H2) [paras. 0056-0058].
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teachings of Serlie with Klotz to implement difference distributions the reasoning being to capture a distribution width for two distributions as shown in Klotz in fig. 9.
Regarding claims 16-19, all limitation are similarly analyzed as claims 3, 4, 6 and 7.
[3] Claims 10, 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Serlie [US 9,947,136] in view Shen [US 2008/0144907].
Regarding claims 10, 12 and 13, Serlie meets the claim limitations as set forth in claim 1 and also teaches:
10. The method of claim 1, wherein: the first image region (i.e. A) is a first area in a first (i.e. 300) [fig. 4]; the second image region (i.e. B) is a second area in the first (i.e. 300) [fig. 4].
Serlie does not explicitly disclose the following claim limitations:
10. The method of claim 1, wherein: the first image region is a first area in a first brain scan image; the second image region is a second area in the first brain scan image.
12. The method of claim 10, further comprising: automatically determining the first and second image regions based on a segmentation algorithm.
13. The method of claim 10, further comprising: automatically determining the second image region based on a designation of the first image region.
However, in the same field of endeavor Shen discloses the deficient claim limitations, as follows:
10. The method of claim 1, wherein: the first image region (i.e. gray matter) is a first area in a first brain scan image (i.e. figs. 1 and 2) [para. 0085]; the second image region (i.e. white matter) is a second area in the first brain scan image (i.e. figs. 1 and 2) [para. 0085].
12. The method of claim 10, further comprising: automatically determining the first and second image regions based on a segmentation algorithm (i.e. apparatus identifies ROI without human intervention) [para. 0085].
13. The method of claim 10, further comprising: automatically determining the second image region based on a designation of the first image region (i.e. apparatus identifies ROI without human intervention) [para. 0085].
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teachings of Serlie with Shen to automate ROI extraction in brain scan images, the reasoning being reduce costs associated with technical personnel [Shen: para. 0018].
[4] Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Serlie [US 9,947,136] in view Shen [US 2008/0144907] further in view of Sudarsky et al. (“Sudarsky”) [US 2019/0147639].
Regarding claim 11, Serlie and Shen meet the claim limitations as set forth in claim 10.
Serlie and Shen does not explicitly disclose the following claim limitations:
The method of claim 10, wherein: the first image region is derived from a first bounding box; and the second image region is derived from a second bounding box.
However, in the same field of endeavor Sudarsky discloses the deficient claim limitations, as follows:
Image region (i.e. ROI) is derived from a bounding box (i.e. box) [para. 0038].
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teachings of Serlie and Shen with Sudarsky and extract ROIs using a bounding box the reasoning being box shapes naturally lends to a two dimensional image displayed on a display [Sudarsky: para. 0038].
Conclusion
[5] Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SATH V PERUNGAVOOR whose telephone number is (571)272-7455. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8 am-5 pm.
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, COLLEEN FAUZ can be reached at (571) 272-1667. 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.
/SATH V PERUNGAVOOR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2488
Prosecution Insights