DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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
2. The amendment filed June 30, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-15 and 17-20 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to Claims have overcome the previous objections and the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection to claim 9. However, the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection to claim 16 which has been pulled up to claim 1 remains.
Response to Arguments
3. Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed June 30, 2026, with respect to claim 1 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection of March 30, 2026 has been withdrawn.
Claim Objections
4. Claims 2, 3, 6, 14, and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities: “the plurality of second opacity values” should be rewritten to “the plurality of corresponding second opacity values” to match claim 1. Appropriate correction is required.
5. Claim 4 objected to because of the following informalities: line 4 Appropriate correction is required.
Specification
6. The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract exceeds 150 words in length. MPEP 608.01(b)(I)(C) states “The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph preferably within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should not exceed 15 lines of text. Abstracts exceeding 15 lines of text or 150 words should be checked to see that they are as concise as the disclosure permits. The form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as "means" and "said," should be avoided. The abstract should sufficiently describe the disclosure to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.”
A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
7. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
8. Claim 1-15 and 17-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the determination of the plurality of differences" in Line 20. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Furthermore, the Examiner recognizes claim 16 has been pulled up to claim 1 and that an amendment has been made to overcome to the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection against claim 16. However, the limitations from claim 16 pulled up to claim 1 remain unclear.
The amendment in claim 1 discloses on line 18-19 “maintain the voxel value of the second sample in the second region and exclude an opacity value associated with the second sample from being used in the determination of the plurality of differences”.
However, lines 23-25 disclose determining a “plurality of differences between the plurality of first opacity values … and a plurality of corresponding second opacity values in the second region”. It is unclear to the Examiner when the plurality of the first opacity values are the same, are all the opacity values associated with the second sample excluded from the plurality of differences determination step disclosed in lines 23-25? Or is only one second opacity value excluded? If all the second opacity values are excluded, how will the step of determining a plurality of differences be calculated?
Furthermore, lines 26-27 disclose “adjust the voxel value of the second sample in the second region based on a weighted sum of the plurality of differences”. Based on the Applicant’s amendment, it appears the Applicant intends for the determination of the plurality of first opacity values being the same step occurs before the adjusting of the voxel value step. These two steps contradict each other since line 18 discloses maintaining the voxel value of the second sample whereas lines 26-27 disclose adjusting the voxel value of the second sample. Does the Applicant intend that the voxel value of the second sample is maintained for some other operation that happens in between the determination step of plurality of first opacity values being the same and the eventual adjusting of the voxel value of the second sample step? Thus, claim 1 is unclear.
The Examiner advises the Applicant that amending lines 23-27 in claim 1 as shown below will overcome the rejection:
“in response to a determination that the plurality of first opacity values in the first region are the same, maintain the voxel value of the second sample in the second region and exclude an opacity value associated with the second sample from being used in a determination of a plurality of differences. wherein the plurality of first opacity values in the first region each comprise a fully transparent opacity value or a fully opaque opacity value;
in response to a determination that the plurality of first opacity values in the first region are not the same: determine the plurality of differences between the plurality of first opacity values in the first region of the first volume data and a plurality of corresponding second opacity values in the second region; and adjust the voxel value of the second sample in the second region based on a weighted sum of the plurality of differences”
Claim 20 is also rejected for the same reasoning as claim 1.
Claims 2-15 and 17-19 are also rejected by dependency on claim 1.
Allowable Subject Matter
9. Claims 1 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The combination of the prior art fails to teach the apparatus wherein the processing circuitry is configured to: detect whether the plurality of first opacity values in the first region are the same; and in response to a determination that the plurality of first opacity values in the first region are the same, maintain the voxel value of the second sample in the second region and exclude an opacity value associated with the second sample from being used in the determination of the plurality of differences, wherein the plurality of first opacity values in the first region each comprise a fully transparent opacity value or a fully opaque opacity value.
Conclusion
10. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
- Souza et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2009/0226067 A1) teaches adjusting a second volume data based on differences between a first and second intensity values.
- Coupe et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2011/0044553 A1) teaches creating weighted intensity data.
- Murray et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication NO. 2015/0022523 A1) teaches calculating opacity values for volumetric data.
11. 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.
12. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTINE Y AHN whose telephone number is (571)272-0672. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5pm.
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, Alicia Harrington can be reached at (571)272-2330. 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.
/CHRISTINE YERA AHN/Examiner, Art Unit 2615
/ALICIA M HARRINGTON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2615
Prosecution Insights