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 .
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 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 of this title, 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.
Claims 1-3 and 13-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D1 (US 20090171196 A1) in view of D2 (US 20130011062 A1).
With regards to claims 1 and 15-17, D1 discloses an apparatus and method for localizing a tool 12 in an X-ray image [0019-0022, 0025, 0038, 0042] (Figs. 1-3A), wherein the tool has an X-ray absorption strength that is spatially changeable along a specified longitudinal direction of the tool according to a specified absorption characteristic [0020-0025, 0032] (Figs. 2-3A; radiopaque markers arranged in a pattern along the shaft of the catheter produce spatially varying x-ray absorption), the method comprising: using known image-processing techniques, including fast Fourier transforms, to identify the location of the tool [0032].
D1 fails to teach determining a spatial frequency spectrum of a portion of the X-ray image; checking whether the spatial frequency spectrum corresponds to the specified absorption characteristic of the tool; and determining the portion of the X-ray image as a position of the tool when the spatial frequency spectrum corresponds to the specified absorption characteristic of the tool.
D2 teaches a method for image processing comprising: determining a spatial frequency spectrum of a portion of an image [0389-0391] (performing a Fourier transformation on the native image data to convert the spatial-domain representation of the image into a frequency-domain representation on portions of an image); checking whether the spatial frequency spectrum corresponds to the specified absorption characteristic [0391-0395] (analyzing the Fourier transform information of each image portion for characteristics of a known pattern); and determining the portion of the X-ray image as a position of the tool when the spatial frequency spectrum corresponds to the specified absorption characteristic of the tool [0392-0395] (identifying and selecting the particular image portions having the highest likelihood of depicting the known pattern, while rejecting portions that do not exhibit the expected frequency characteristics). It would have been well known, obvious, and predictably suitable to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify D1 with the teachings of D2 to more reliably distinguish the marker pattern of D1 from surrounding anatomical structures and to determine the particular image portion containing the tool.
With regards to claim 2, D1 discloses wherein the markers are arranged in a pattern formed from detectable material, wherein the material may comprise any number of shapes and sizes [0020-0025, 0032] (Fig. 3A), but fails to teach wherein, according to the specific absorption characteristic, a spatial change in the X-ray absorption strength along the specified longitudinal direction recurs or recurs up to a differing amplitude. D1 teaches a known pattern having recurring light portions, wherein the component portions of the pattern have a repetition spacing that produces corresponding characteristic components or peaks in the Fourier domain representation [0391]. It would have been well known, obvious, and predictably suitable to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify D1 with the teachings of D2 in order to produce a more readily detectable recurring pattern to facilitate reliable marker detection.
With regards to claim 3, D1 does not teach the claimed method step. However, D2 teaches wherein a spatial change has a characteristic frequency at which a reference spatial frequency spectrum has a peak value [0391] (known pattern having repetitive spacing produce notable peaks) and verifying whether the spatial frequency spectrum has a peak value at a point that corresponds to the characteristic frequency within a s specific tolerance range [0392-0395] (identifying characteristic frequency of the known pattern and rejecting portions with no peak, wherein templates may be generated from transform attributes of known images and defined as values that fall within bounded ranges). It would have been well known, obvious, and predictably suitable to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify D1 with the teachings of D2 in order to produce a more readily detectable recurring pattern to facilitate reliable marker detection.
With regards to claim 13, D1 fails to teach the claimed step. However, D2 teaches wherein the portion is a region of interest of a plurality of specified regions of interest of the X-ray image [0391-0395].
With regards to claim 14, the combination of D1 and D2 does not teach the claimed method step. However, those skilled in the art recognize that such a modification was already known. It would have been well known, obvious, and predictably suitable to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify the combination of D1 and D2 to visually highlight when a correspondence has been determined as a predictable way to present the localization result to a user.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-12 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
None of the prior art teach:
wherein the checking comprises verifying whether the spatial frequency spectrum has one peak value respectively at two points whose spacing from one another corresponds to a spacing of the two characteristic frequencies from one another within a specified tolerance range;
wherein the checking is carried out as a function of a specified modulation transfer function;
generating a further X-ray image that represents the tool in a calibration environment; and determining the specified absorption characteristic based on the further X-ray image; and/or
obtaining or determining an angle that the specified longitudinal direction of the tool encloses with a specified X-ray projection plane when generating the X-ray image, wherein the checking is carried out as a function of the angle.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARCUS H TANINGCO whose telephone number is (571)272-1848. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-6pm EST.
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 on 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.
/MARCUS H TANINGCO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2884
Prosecution Insights