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 .
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claims 1-12, 14 are presented for examination.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 6-7, 9, 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buelow et al. (WO 2020/083764 A1; pub. Apr. 30, 2020) in view of Akimoto et al. (WO 2017/090083 A1; pub. Jun. 01, 2017).
Regarding claim 1, Buelow et al. disclose: An X-ray image analysis system, comprising: an X-ray image input interface (fig.7 items 5a, 5b, 5c) configured to receive X-ray images taken by an X- ray imaging system comprising an X-ray source (fig.7 items 3a, 3b, 3c) and an X-ray detector (fig.7 items 4a, 4b, 4c); and
a processor connected to the X-ray image input interface and configured to;
obtain at least one X-ray image from the X-ray image input interface (fig.1 item 5a, 5b, 5c & 7);
perform a scapula position detection (fig.7 items 2a, 2b, 2c), including inputting the X-ray image into a trained machine-learning system, running the trained machine-learning system, and obtaining a scapula position (pg.5 L4-5).
Buelow et al. are silent about:
generate scapula position a scapula position information output interface configured to receive the scapula position information from the processor and transmit the scapula position information to a display.
In a similar field of endeavor Akimoto et al. disclose: generate scapula position a scapula position information output interface configured to receive the scapula position information from the processor and transmit the scapula position information to a display (fig.1 item 44, pg.37 last para., pg.40 L5-10, fig.10) motivated by the benefits for facilitating medical procedure (Akimoto et al. pg.40 L8-10).
In light of the benefits for facilitating medical procedure as taught by Akimoto et al., 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 apparatus of Buelow et al. with the teachings of Akimoto et al.
Regarding claim 6, Buelow et al. disclose: to detect a lung field in the X- ray image and to quantify an overlap of the scapula with the lung field, and the scapula position information comprises an overlap quantifier, quantifying the overlap of the scapula with the lung field and/or an overlap alert that is issued if the overlap quantifier exceeds a predetermined threshold (pg.4 L22-31 & pg.5 L6-7).
Regarding claim 7, Buelow et al. disclose: the processor is configured to detect the lung field using at least:
recognition of a lung contour by image processing;
derivation of the lung contour from a lung atlas;
and detection of the lung contour using yet another trained machine learning system (pg.4 L22-31 & pg.5 L6-7).
Regarding claim 9, Buelow et al. disclose: the quantification of the overlap comprises computing the quotient of an area of an intersection of the scapula and the lung field over an area of a union of the scapula and the lung field or an area of the lung field, wherein a varying inhalation status is compensated for by evaluating the areas in a rib-cage atlas (pg.4 L22-31 & pg.5 L6-7).
Regarding claim 14, Buelow et al. and Akimoto et al. disclose: A method for analyzing an X-ray image, comprising obtaining at least one X-ray image taken by an X-ray imaging system comprising an X-ray source and an X-ray detector; performing a scapula position detection, including inputting the X-ray image into a trained machine-learning system, running the trained machine-learning system, and obtaining a scapula position; and generating scapula position information; and transferring the scapula position information from a scapula position information output interface to a display (the claim contains the same substantive limitations as claim 1, therefore, the claim is rejected on the same basis).
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buelow et al. (WO 2020/083764 A1; pub. Apr. 30, 2020) in view of Akimoto et al. (WO 2017/090083 A1; pub. Jun. 01, 2017) and further in view of Qu et al. (CN109741316A; pub. May 10, 2019).
Regarding claim 2, the combined references are silent about: image pre-processing is applied to the X-ray image before inputting-it into the trained machine- learning system.
In a similar field of endeavor Qu et al. disclose: image pre-processing is applied to the X-ray image before inputting-it into the trained machine- learning system (para. [0020]-[0021], [0047]-[0049]) motivated by the benefits for improved medical imaging system (Qu et al. para. [0008]).
In light of the benefits for improved medical imaging system as taught by Qu et al., 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 apparatus of Buelow et al. and Akimoto et al. with the teachings of Qu et al.
Regarding claim 3, the combined references are silent about: the machine-learning system is a deep learning system comprising, a fully convolutional neural network.
In a similar field of endeavor Qu et al. disclose: the machine-learning system is a deep learning system comprising, a fully convolutional neural network (para. [0024]) motivated by the benefits for improved medical imaging system (Qu et al. para. [0008]).
In light of the benefits for improved medical imaging system as taught by Qu et al., 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 apparatus of Buelow et al. and Akimoto et al. with the teachings of Qu et al.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buelow et al. (WO 2020/083764 A1; pub. Apr. 30, 2020) in view of Akimoto et al. (WO 2017/090083 A1; pub. Jun. 01, 2017) and further in view of Lang (US 2015/0223941 A1; pub. Aug. 13, 2015).
Regarding claim 4, the combined references are silent about: the scapula position information comprises a scapula border.
In a similar field of endeavor Lang discloses: the scapula position information comprises a scapula border (para. [0124]) motivated by the benefits for facilitating medical procedure (Lang para. [0055]).
In light of the benefits for facilitating medical procedure as taught by Lang, 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 apparatus of Buelow et al. and Akimoto et al. with the teachings of Lang.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buelow et al. (WO 2020/083764 A1; pub. Apr. 30, 2020) in view of Akimoto et al. (WO 2017/090083 A1; pub. Jun. 01, 2017) and further in view of Gong et al. (US 2020/0211186 A1; pub. Jul. 2, 2020).
Regarding claim 8, the combined references are silent about: the quantification of the overlap comprises summing values of distances from the lung contour of all points on the scapula border that lie within the lung contour.
In a similar field of endeavor Gong et al. disclose: the quantification of the overlap comprises summing values of distances from the lung contour of all points on the scapula border that lie within the lung contour (para. [0120]) motivated by the benefits for automated assessment of the quality of a medical image and/or diagnosis of a pathological condition based on the medical image with improved efficiency and/or accuracy (Gong et al. para. [0004]).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buelow et al. (WO 2020/083764 A1; pub. Apr. 30, 2020) in view of Akimoto et al. (WO 2017/090083 A1; pub. Jun. 01, 2017) and further in view of Namayega “A deep learning algorithm for contour detection in synthetic 2D bi-planar X-ray images of the scapula: towards improved 3D reconstruction of the scapula”, University of Cape Town; Aug. 31, 2020; pg. 1 – 77.
Regarding claim 11, the combined references are silent about: an affine transformation between the scapula border and a reference scapula border is computed, and the scapula position information comprises eigenvalues and eigenvectors of the affine transformation.
In a similar field of endeavor Namayega disclose: an affine transformation between the scapula border and a reference scapula border is computed (pg.28 4, pg.30 4.3.2), and the scapula position information comprises eigenvalues and eigenvectors of the affine transformation (pg.12 3.3) motivated by the benefits for improved clinical scenario (Namayega pg.67-68).
In light of the benefits for improved clinical scenario as taught by Namayega, 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 apparatus of Buelow et al. and Akimoto et al. with the teachings of Namayega.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buelow et al. (WO 2020/083764 A1; pub. Apr. 30, 2020) in view of Akimoto et al. (WO 2017/090083 A1; pub. Jun. 01, 2017) and further in view of Oh et al. (US 2016/0148375 A1; pub. May 26, 2016).
Regarding claim 12, the combined references are silent about: effects of the scapula are suppressed in the X-ray image to generate an improved X-ray image by at least one of
image processing;
dual energy subtraction;
calculation of scapula attenuation using a chest radiograph atlas and subtraction of the calculated scapula attenuation; and
the scapula position information comprises the improved X-ray image.
In a similar field of endeavor Oh et al. disclose: effects of the scapula are suppressed in the X-ray image to generate an improved X-ray image by at least one of
image processing;
dual energy subtraction;
calculation of scapula attenuation using a chest radiograph atlas and subtraction of the calculated scapula attenuation; and
the scapula position information comprises the improved X-ray image (para. [0285]) motivated by the benefits for improved imaging (Oh et al. para. [0285]).
In light of the benefits for improved imaging as taught by Oh et al., 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 apparatus of Buelow et al. and Akimoto et al. with the teachings of Oh et al.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 10 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 5, the prior arts alone or in combination fail to teach, disclose, suggest or render obvious: the processor is further configured to detect lung pathologies using another trained machine learning system, and the scapula border is transmitted only if at least one predetermined lung pathology has been detected.
Regarding claim 10, the prior arts alone or in combination fail to teach, disclose, suggest or render obvious: the quantification of the overlap comprises creating a line segment between two intersection points between the scapula border and the lung contour, and computing at least one of: a largest distance of points of the scapula border inside the lung field from the line segment; a diameter of a largest circle that can be fitted inside an area bound by the line segment and the scapular border inside the lung field; and a ratio of areas of two segments of the scapula on both sides of the line segment.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAMADOU FAYE whose telephone number is (571)270-0371. The examiner can normally be reached Mon – Fri 9AM-6PM.
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, Uzma Alam can be reached at 571-272-3995. 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.
/MAMADOU FAYE/Examiner, Art Unit 2884
/UZMA ALAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2884