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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 11 and 12 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 6/29/2026. The restriction is made final herein.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claims 1, 15 and 16 recite mathematical concepts, in which values are measured from images. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the images is interpreted as any random image, thus creating no application, and the claim ultimately determines reproducibility value but does not apply this value to any application. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the limitations are not applied by any particular machine, only using a generic processing circuitry. Claims 2-5 are also considered abstract ideas without significantly more, because claims 2-5 only provide more mathematical concepts regarding the imaging settings and determinization of status, which is also considered a calculated value. Claims 7-10 are also considered abstract ideas, because they only provide more mathematical concepts of the calculation of transformation parameters. These claims all do not provide any practical application to the mathematical concept.
Claims 6, 13 and 14 are considered eligible subject matter. Claim 6 contains is considered eligible because the claim provides parts to a particular machine of a driving device which provides control for moving or rotating the target site. Claim 13 and 14 provide a practical application regarding the images being medical images, and the calculations being practiced on medical images.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-3, 6 and 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable by U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20130123602 (Kovalski et al).
Regarding claim 15, Kowalski et al discloses an imaging support method (fig. 9A-B) comprising: acquiring a first image, i.e. a reconstructed image (fig. 9a, items 314, fig. 11) and a second image older than the first image, i.e. a persistence image captured before the first image (fig. 9a, item 308, fig. 10); calculating a correction value for reproducing the second image, the correction position for reproducing the second image by matching a position (page 7, paragraphs 66-67, fig. 9a, item 318-320); and determining reproducibility of the second image based on the correction value by providing a user with an option to reproduce the second image for another procedure or not by correcting the position (fig. 9B, item 320, page 7, paragraph 69).
Claims 1 and 16 are rejected for the same reasons as claim 15. Thus, the arguments analogous to that presented above for claim 15 are equally applicable to claims 1 and 16. Claims 1 and 16 distinguish from claim 15 only in that claim 1 is an imaging support apparatus comprising processing circuitry configured to carry out the method of claim 15 and claim 16 is a non-transitory computer readable medium including computer executable instructions, wherein the instructions, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to perform the method of claim 15. Kovalski et al teaches further this feature, i.e. an imaging support apparatus (fig. 1) comprising processing circuitry (fig. 1, item 22) configured to carry out the method (fig. 9a, 9b), and a non-transitory computer readable medium including computer executable instructions (fig. 1, item 40, page 3, paragraph 35), wherein the instructions, when executed by a processor (fig. 1, item 22), cause the processor to perform the method (fig. 9a, 9b)
Regarding claim 2, Kovalski et al discloses the reproducibility represents a criterion, a displayed criterion to the user in item 320, fig. 9b, to determine whether or not a setting for imaging, whether to proceed imaging based on repositioning (page 7, paragraph 68) based on the correction value, since a representation of the correction value is provided to the user and therefore is based on the correction value (page 8, paragraph 67), is possible for an imaging target site, being possible if the user indicates imaging (page 7, paragraph 67).
Regarding claim 3, Kovalski et al discloses the processing circuitry is further configured to output a correction instruction for the setting (fig. 9B, item 322, 324) in a case where the setting based on the correction value is possible for the imaging target site, i.e. the user indicates the imaging should occur (fig. 9B, item 320, page 7, paragraph 68).
Regarding claim 6, Kovalski et al discloses the processing circuitry is configured to execute at least one of presentation of the correction value to an operator (fig. 9B, item 230) or a control instruction for moving or rotating the imaging target site by driving a device (fig. 9B, item 322).
Regarding claim 13, Kovalski et al discloses the first image is a medical image collected from a same imaging target site relating to the second image, i.e. the heart (page 6, paragraph 57) using a medical image diagnostic apparatus (fig. 1) or a camera device.
Regarding claim 14, Kovalski et al discloses the first image and the second image are medical images collected from a same imaging target site, a images of a heart (page 6, paragraph 57) using a same medical image diagnostic apparatus (fig. 1) or different medical image diagnostic apparatuses.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kovalski et al in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20150091569 (Shinoda)
Regarding claim 4, Kovalski et al discloses all of the claimed elements as set forth above and incorporated herein by reference. Kovalski et al further discloses the processing circuitry is further configured to output a setting based on the correction value, the correction value being imaging condition values (fig. 9b, item 320).
Kovalski et al does not disclose expressly wherein output information of an unreproducible status in a case where the setting based on the imaging value is impossible for the imaging target site
Shinoda discloses output information of an unreproducible status in a case where the setting based on the imaging value is impossible for the imaging target site (page 6, paragraph 69)
Kovalski et al & Shinoda are combinable because they are from the same field of endeavor, i.e. medical imaging.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to notify the user of an impossible imaging status.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to provide a more user friendly apparatus by allowing users to be notified of the status.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the apparatus of Kovalski et al with the notification of Shinoda to obtain the invention as specified in claim 4.
Claims 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kovalski et al in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20230267604 (Dhaouadi et al)
Regarding claim 7, Kovalski et al discloses all of the claimed elements as set forth above and incorporated herein by reference. Kovalski et al discloses further discloses the registration/ alignment of the first and second images (fig. 9A, item 316).
Kovalski et al does not disclose expressly calculating a transformation parameter such that a similarity degree to the second image is maximized through transformation processing on the first image, and to calculate the correction value from the transformation parameter.
Dhaouadi et al discloses calculating a transformation parameter, parameters of the rigid transformation found in the process of Bayesian optimization (page 7, paragraph 77) such that a similarity degree to the second image is maximized through transformation processing on the first image, i.e. the mutual information is maximized (page 7, paragraph 77), and to calculate the correction value from the transformation parameter, i.e. the shift and rotation (page 7, paragraph 77).
Kovalski et al & Dhaouadi et al are combinable because they are from the same field of endeavor, i.e. registering images to each other.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use transformations for aligning images.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to provide a more robust system by considering multiple locations of differences in the images.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the apparatus of Kovalski et al with the transformation registration of Dhaouadi et al to obtain the invention as specified in claim 7.
Regarding claim 8, Dhaouadi et al discloses the similarity degree is a value of at least one of a mean square error, a mutual information (page 7, paragraph 77), a sum of squared differences, a sum of absolute differences, a normalized cross-correlation, or an image uniformity ratio.
Regarding claim 9, Dhaouadi et al discloses the correction value is a movement amount, shift, and a rotation angle of an imaging target site extracted in the first image (page 7, paragraph 77), the movement amount and the rotation angle being calculated from the transformation parameter, the shift and rotation calculated based on the parameters of the Bayesian optimization (page 7, paragraph 77).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kovalski et al in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20170337682 (Liao et al).
Regarding claim 10, Kovalski et al discloses all of the claimed elements as set forth above and incorporated herein by reference. Kovalski et al further discloses the registration/ alignment of the first and second images (fig. 9A, item 316) by generating a transformation parameter, i.e. the parameters used to combine/ register images of page 7, paragraph 65) and generating the correction value from the transformation parameter, i.e. the revised detector or table position (page 7, paragraphs 67-68). Kovalski et al further discloses the pair of images that are registered are a pair in which the second imaged image being imaged before the first imaged image (fig. 9a).
Kovalski et al does not disclose expressly generating a transformation parameter by inputting the first image and the second image to a trained model, the transformation parameter inferred by the trained model, the trained model being trained while a first imaged image and a second imaged image of an imaging target site are set to input data, and the transformation parameter calculated such that a similarity degree to the second imaged image is maximized through transformation processing on the first imaged image is set to correct answer data.
Liao et al discloses generating a transformation parameter, the output of the intelligent artificial agent/ DNN of page 3, paragraph 39, by inputting the first image and the second image to a trained model, the images during testing (page 3, paragraph 39, the transformation parameter inferred/ estimated by the trained model (page 3, paragraph 39), the trained model being trained while a first imaged image and a second imaged image of an imaging target site are set to input data as newly input data that correspond to the test data (page 3, paragraph 39), and the transformation parameter calculated such that a similarity degree to the second imaged image is maximized through transformation processing (page 4, paragraph 40) on the first imaged image is set to correct answer data, i.e. the correct pose is set (page 3, paragraph 39).
Kovalski et al & Liao et al are combinable because they are from the same field of endeavor, i.e. registering images.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use a trained model to register images.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to provide a more robust apparatus by considering previously acceptable data.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the apparatus of Kovalski et al with the trained model of Liao et al to obtain the invention as specified in claim 10.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 5 is 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.
Claim 5 contains allowable subject matter regarding, based on the claimed correction value being impossible for the claimed imaging target site, presenting a correction instruction of the setting of making an image closest to the claimed second image and further presenting a difference from the second image as corrected based on the correction instruction.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kathleen Yuan Dulaney whose telephone number is (571)272-2902. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9AM-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, Emily Terrell can be reached at 5712703717. 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.
/KATHLEEN Y DULANEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2666 7/15/2026
Prosecution Insights