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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02/27/2025 is/are compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Office Action Summary
Claim(s) 1-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim(s) 9 and 10 is/are interpreted under 35 USC 112(f).
Claim(s) 1-3 and 7-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moriwaki et al (US 2019/0197688 A1) in view of Fetita et al (Linking CT and SPECT based analysis for quantitative follow-up of vascular perfusion defects in COVID-19).
Claim(s) 4-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moriwaki et al (US 2019/0197688 A1) in view of Fetita et al (Linking CT and SPECT based analysis for quantitative follow-up of vascular perfusion defects in COVID-19), further in view of Ghesu et al (US 2022/0022818 A1).
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.
Claim(s) 1-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. When reviewing independent claim 1, and based upon consideration of all of the relevant factors with respect to the claim as a whole, claim(s) 1-11 is/are held to claim an abstract idea without reciting elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea and is/are therefore rejected as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101. The Examiner will analyze claim 1, and similar rationale applies to independent Claim(s) 9. The rationale, under MPEP § 2106, for this finding is explained below:
The claimed invention (1) must be directed to one of the four statutory categories, and (2) must not be wholly directed to subject matter encompassing a judicially recognized exception, as defined below. The following two step analysis is used to evaluate these criteria.
Step 1: Is the claim directed to one of the four patent-eligible subject matter categories: process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
When examining the claim under 35 U.S.C. 101, the Examiner interprets that the claims is related to a process since the claim is directed to a method, an apparatus, and a CRM to do a lung region segmentation.
Step 2a, Prong 1: Does the claim wholly embrace a judicially recognized exception, which includes laws of nature, physical phenomena, and abstract ideas, or is it a particular practical application of a judicial exception?
The Examiner interprets that the judicial exception applies since Claim X limitation of receiving a two-dimensional (2D) medical image; extracting a lung region from the 2D medical image; adjusting a size of a mask resembling the lung region; and extracting a peripheral region by removing a region corresponding to the mask from the lung region is/are directed to an abstract idea. The claim is related to mental process by collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis, where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016) and/or performing a mental process in a computer environment. An example of a case identifying a mental process performed in a computer environment as an abstract idea is Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d at 1316-18, 120 USPQ2d at 1360. If the claim recites a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea enumerated in MPEP § 2106.04(a), a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon), the claim requires further analysis in Prong Two.
Step 2a, Prong 2: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
The Examiner interprets that Claim 1 limitation does not provide additional elements or combination of additional elements to a practical application since the claim(s) is/are (adding the words of “applying it” with more instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). or insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g). or Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h).] See, MPEP §2106.04(a), Because a judicial exception is not eligible subject matter, Bilski, 561 U.S. at 601, 95 USPQ2d at 1005-06 (quoting Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. at 309, 206 USPQ at 197 (1980)), if there are no additional claim elements besides the judicial exception, or if the additional claim elements merely recite another judicial exception, that is insufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See, e.g., RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co., 855 F.3d 1322, 1327, 122 USPQ2d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ("Adding one abstract idea (math) to another abstract idea (encoding and decoding) does not render the claim non-abstract"). OR Genetic Techs. v. Merial LLC, 818 F.3d 1369, 1376, 118 USPQ2d 1541, 1546 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (eligibility "cannot be furnished by the unpatentable law of nature (or natural phenomenon or abstract idea) itself."). For a claim reciting a judicial exception to be eligible, the additional elements (if any) in the claim must "transform the nature of the claim" into a patent-eligible application of the judicial exception, Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 217, 110 USPQ2d at 1981, either at Prong Two or in Step 2B. If there are no additional elements in the claim, then it cannot be eligible. In such a case, after making the appropriate rejection (see MPEP § 2106.07 for more information on formulating a rejection for lack of eligibility), it is a best practice for the examiner to recommend an amendment, if possible, that would resolve eligibility of the claim.
Step 2b: If a judicial exception into a practical application is not recited in the claim, the Examiner must interpret if the claim recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The Examiner interprets that the Claims do not amount to significantly more since the Claim(s) is/state adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, e.g., mere data gathering in conjunction with a law of nature or abstract idea such as a step of obtaining information about credit card transactions so that the information can be analyzed by an abstract mental process, as discussed in CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)).
Furthermore, the generic computer components of the processor recited as performing generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities amount to no more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system.
Claim(s) 2-8 and 10-11 depending on the independent claim/s include all the limitation of the independent claim. The Examiner finds that Claim(s) 2-8 and 10-11 does not states significantly more since the claim only recites receiving a two-dimensional (2D) medical image; extracting a lung region from the 2D medical image; adjusting a size of a mask resembling the lung region; and extracting a peripheral region by removing a region corresponding to the mask from the lung region.
Thus, Claim(s) 1-11 recite the same abstract idea and therefore are not drawn to the eligible subject matter as they are directed to the abstract idea without significantly more.
Therefore, the Examiner interprets that the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Furthermore, regarding claim(s) 11 is/are directed to non-statutory subject matter. The broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim in light of the specification concludes that the claim as a whole covers a transitory signal since the definition of “computer-readable recording medium” leaves open the possibility that the medium could be transitory. Paragraph [0053] of the specification discloses “[…] The computer-readable recording medium may include all types of recording devices in which data that is readable by a computer system is stored. Examples of the computer-readable recording medium may include read-only memory (ROM), random access memory (RAM), compact-disc ROM (CD-ROM), a magnetic tape, a floppy disk, an optical data storage device […]”. This leaves open the possibility that the computer readable storage medium of claim 9 could be transitory. The Examiner suggests amending the claims to recite a non-transitory computer readable storage medium.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “an input unit”, “a lung extraction unit”, “a mask adjustment unit”, and “a periphery extraction unit” in claim 9 and “a vessel identification unit” in claim 10.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 7-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moriwaki et al (US 2019/0197688 A1) in view of Fetita et al (Linking CT and SPECT based analysis for quantitative follow-up of vascular perfusion defects in COVID-19).
Regarding claim(s) 1 and 9, Moriwaki teaches a lung region segmentation apparatus comprising:
an input unit configured to receive a two-dimensional (2D) medical image (Figure 9; and Paragraph [0080]: “The slice image acquisition unit 710 reads each of slice images included of the CT image newly stored in the image DB 130 […]”);
a lung extraction unit configured to extract a lung region from the 2D medical image (Figure 9; and Paragraph [0098]: “the contour identification unit 730 extracts the lung field areas 810, 820 from the slice image 800, and identifies contours 911, 912 of the lung field areas 810, 820.”);
a mask adjustment unit configured to adjust a size of a mask (read as “lung field integrated image”) resembling the lung region (Figure 16; Figure 17; Paragraph [0162]: “The lung field integrated image generation unit 1510 generates an image formed by integrating the both lung field areas (integrated image), based on the contours of the lung field areas of the left and right lungs in each slice image, which are notified from the contour identification unit 730”; and Paragraph [0177]: “the integrated image reduction unit 1520 reduces the size of the Integrated image 1630 notified from the lung field integrated image generation unit 1510, and generates a reduced integrated image 1701.”); and
a periphery extraction unit configured to extract a peripheral region (Figure 7; Figure 10 - 12; Abstract: “identifying a position at which the chest wall and the mediastinum are internally divided and dividing the lung field area into a central area and a peripheral area based on a shape of the lung field area”; and Paragraph [0181]: “the boundary of the central area is calculated based on the reduced integrated image to divide the lung field area into the central area and the peripheral area […]”).
Moriwaki fails to teach a periphery extraction unit configured to extract a peripheral region by removing a region corresponding to the mask from the lung region. However, Fetita teaches a periphery extraction unit configured to extract a peripheral region by removing a region corresponding to the mask from the lung region (Figure 3: “[…] (f) difference d-e and intersection with b, (g) peripheral region (gray) of the lung slice (white); and Page 124650E-4, 1st Paragraph: “[…] 3- erosion of the previous result using a disk structuring element of radius equal to the expected periphery width (Fig. 3e) and intersection with the lung section (Fig. 3f)”).
Moriwaki teaches receiving a two-dimensional medical image, extracting a lung field area from the medical image, generating an integrated image based on contours of left and right lung field areas, reducing the integrated image, and dividing the lung field area into central and peripheral areas. Additionally, Fetita teaches extracting a peripheral lung region using morphological image processing operations including erosion and difference operations, wherein an inner lung region corresponding to a reduced lung shape is removed from the lung region to obtain a peripheral region.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the lung field processing technique of Moriwaki with the peripheral region extraction technique of Fetita in order to provide a known and predictable technique for extracting a peripheral lung region from a segmented lung region, thereby improving the consistency and accuracy of peripheral lung analysis, because Fetita expressly teaches that peripheral lung regions are useful for evaluating vascular remodeling and perfusion-related abnormalities and provides a concrete image-processing methodology for generating such peripheral regions. This motivation for the combination of Moriwaki and Fetita is/are supported by KSR exemplary rationale (G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention. MPEP 2141 (III).
Regarding claim(s) 2 and 10, Moriwaki as modifiedy by Fetita teaches the lung region segmentation apparatus of claim 9, where Fetita teaches further comprising a vessel identification unit configured to identify a vascular region from the peripheral region (Figure 2; Page 124650E-2, 2.1 Data preprocessing, 3rd Paragraph: “The 3D vascular tree was reconstructed using the original approach of upgraded in to account for inter-subject CT protocol variability in the reconstruction of distal segments”; and 4th Paragraph: “The segmented vascular calibers were used to compute a 3D vascular remodeling map as described in the following (Fig. 2). For each point in the 3D lung mask volume, two quantities are evaluated in a 3D region of interest (ROI) […]”; and Page 124650E-3, 2.2 Peripheral mapping between vascular […] defects, 1st Paragraph: “We hypothesize that the peripheral lung region is the most representative for studying both vascular remodeling and perfusion defects since large caliber vessels are not included […] For both SPECT and CT segmented lungs, we extracted the antero-postero-lateral lung periphery […] the peripheral region is extracted as follow: (1) convex hull, (2) dilatation, (3) erosion [...]”).
Regarding claim(s) 3, Moriwaki as modifiedy by Fetita teaches the lung region segmentation method of claim 2, where Fetita teaches further comprising calculating a ratio of a size of a vascular region of the lung region to a size of a vascular region of the peripheral region (Figure 2; Equation 1; Page 124650E-3, 1st Paragraph: “the local vascular density of small-to-medium caliber vessels (LVD) […] LVD = BV20/VROI”; and 2nd Paragraph: “the local blood volume ratio in the ROI, BV5/BV20 (BVX denoting blood volume of vessels with cross section area less than X mm2) accounting for the change in caliber […] The vascular remodeling map is defined at each point as the product of the above quantities […]”; and Page 124650E-3, 2.2 Peripheral mapping between vascular […] defects, 1st Paragraph: “[…] we selected the width of the peripheral region of 3 cm […] For both SPECT and CT segmented lungs, we extracted the antero-postero-lateral lung periphery […] the peripheral region is extracted as follow: (1) convex hull, (2) dilatation, (3) erosion [...]”).
Regarding claim(s) 7, Moriwaki as modifiedy by Fetita teaches the lung region segmentation method of claim 1, where Moriwaki teaches wherein the adjusting of the size of the mask comprises:
extracting an outline from the lung region (Figure 16; and Paragraph [0084]: “the contour identification unit 730 extracts the lung field area from each slice image, and identifies the contour of the extracted lung field area”);
generating a mask comprising a first region comprising an outline of a left lung, a second region comprising an outline of a right lung, and an empty space between the first region and the second region (Figure 16; Paragraph [0162]: “The lung field integrated image generation unit 1510 generates an image formed by integrating the both lung field areas (integrated image), based on the contours of the lung field areas of the left and right lungs in each slice image […]”); and
reducing the mask by a specific ratio with respect to a central point of the mask (Figure 16; Paragraph [0163]: “the integrated image reduction unit 1520 reduces the integrated image notified from the lung field integrated image generation unit 1510, and internally divides the reference line segment in a prescribed proportion to divide the lung field area into the central area and the peripheral area”; and Paragraph [0111]: “The division curve generation unit 750 extracts a central position 1130 of the patient's body from the slice image. The division curve generation unit 750 radially extends straight lines from the central position 1130, and extracts intersections between the straight lines and the contours of the lung field areas 1110, 1120, which are notified from the contour identification unit 730 (inner (mediastinum) intersections and outer (chest wall) intersections)”).
Regarding claim(s) 8, Moriwaki as modifiedy by Fetita teaches the lung region segmentation method of claim 7, where Fetita teaches wherein the generating of the mask comprises generating the mask comprising one region enclosed by connecting a highest height point and a lowest height point of the first region to a highest height point and a lowest height point of the second region with line segments, respectively (Figure 3; and Page 124650E-4, 1st Paragraph: “[…] First, the lung main axes in the axial plane are computed based on the apical-basal projection of the segmented lung volume (Fig. 3a – illustration for the right lung). […] 1- computation of the convex-hull of the lung (Fig. 3c), 2- dilatation of the convex-hull using a segment structuring element oriented in the lung short-axis direction towards the mediastinum (Fig. 3d), 3- erosion of the previous result using a disk structuring element of radius equal to the expected periphery width (Fig. 3e) and intersection with the lung section (Fig. 3f)”, Examiner’s Note: “Fetita teaches generating a single enclosing lung mask from left and right lung regions through convex hull generation, which connects separated lung regions through an enclosing boundary. The specific selection of uppermost and lowermost connection points, as recited in claim 8, would have been an obvious implementation detail and design choice for constructing the enclosing mask boundary”).
Regarding claim(s) 11, Moriwaki as modifiedy by Fetita teaches a computer-readable recording medium having recorded where Moriwaki teaches thereon a computer program for executing the lung region segmentation method of claim 1 (Figure 7; Figure 10 – 12; Figure 16; Figure 17; Abstract: “identifying a position at which the chest wall and the mediastinum are internally divided and dividing the lung field area into a central area and a peripheral area based on a shape of the lung field area”; Paragraph [0162]: “The lung field integrated image generation unit 1510 generates an image formed by integrating the both lung field areas (integrated image), based on the contours of the lung field areas of the left and right lungs in each slice image, which are notified from the contour identification unit 730”; and Paragraph [0181]: “the boundary of the central area is calculated based on the reduced integrated image to divide the lung field area into the central area and the peripheral area […]”).
Claim(s) 4-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moriwaki et al (US 2019/0197688 A1) in view of Fetita et al (Linking CT and SPECT based analysis for quantitative follow-up of vascular perfusion defects in COVID-19), further in view of Ghesu et al (US 2022/0022818 A1).
Regarding claim(s) 4, Moriwaki as modifiedy by Fetita teaches the lung region segmentation method of claim 1, but do not specifically teach wherein the 2D medical image comprises an X-ray image. However, Ghesu teaches wherein the 2D medical image comprises an X-ray image (Figure 1; and Paragraph [0033]: “the first modality is 2D x-ray imaging or 2D radiography”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to utilize the lung segmentation and peripheral region extraction techniques of Moriwaki as modified by Fetita on a two-dimensional X-ray image as taught by Ghesu because Ghesu teaches that lung segmentation may be performed directly on 2D X-ray images, thereby extending known lung analysis techniques to a commonly available, lower-cost, and lower-radiation imaging modality while achieving the predictable result of extracting and analyzing lung regions from a 2D X-ray image. This motivation for the combination of Moriwaki, Fetita, and Ghesu is/are supported by KSR exemplary rationale (G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention. MPEP 2141 (III).
Regarding claim(s) 5, Moriwaki as modifiedy by Fetita teaches the lung region segmentation method of claim 1, but do not specifically teach wherein the extracting of the lung region comprises extracting the lung region by using an artificial intelligence (AI) model trained to extract the lung region from the 2D medical image. However, Ghesu teaches wherein the extracting of the lung region comprises extracting the lung region by using an artificial intelligence (AI) model trained to extract the lung region from the 2D medical image (Figure 2; Paragraph [0034]: “At step 204, lungs are segmented from the input medical image using a trained lung segmentation network”; and Paragraph [0035]: “the lung segmentation network is an image-to-image CNN (convolutional neural network), however the lung segmentation network may be any suitable machine learning based network”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to replace the lung region extraction technique of Moriwaki with the trained AI-based lung segmentation technique of Ghesu because Ghesu teaches that trained neural-network-based segmentation provides an automated and reliable mechanism for identifying lung regions in medical images, thereby yielding the predictable result of automatically extracting lung regions for subsequent lung-region and peripheral-region analysis. This motivation for the combination of Moriwaki, Fetita, and Ghesu is/are supported by KSR exemplary rationale (G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention. MPEP 2141 (III).
Regarding claim(s) 6, Moriwaki as modifiedy by Fetita teaches the lung region segmentation method of claim 5, but do not specifically teach wherein the AI model is trained according to a supervised training method by using a dataset comprising a first training image obtained by two-dimensionally projecting a three-dimensional (3D) medical image and a second training image obtained by two-dimensionally projecting a lung region segmented from the 3D medical image.
However, Ghesu teaches wherein the AI model is trained according to a supervised training method by using a dataset comprising a first training image obtained by two-dimensionally projecting a three-dimensional (3D) medical image and a second training image obtained by two-dimensionally projecting a lung region segmented from the 3D medical image (Paragraph [0013]: “the first modality is x-ray and the second modality is CT (computed tomography)”; Paragraph [0007]: “trained by receiving training images of an anatomical object of interest in the second modality and training segmentation masks for the training images”; and Paragraph [0029]: “segmentation networks are trained using synthesized x-ray images generated from 3D CT training images and ground truth target segmentation masks generated from training segmentation masks annotated by a radiologist (or any other user) from the 3D CT training images”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to train the AI-based lung segmentation model used in the combined Moriwaki/Fetita system using the CT-derived synthesized X-ray training methodology of Ghesu because Ghesu teaches that synthesized X-ray images generated from CT images provide training data for developing accurate lung segmentation models in situations where large quantities of annotated X-ray training data may not be available, thereby yielding the predictable result of improving the training and deployment of AI-based lung segmentation on two-dimensional X-ray images. This motivation for the combination of Moriwaki, Fetita, and Ghesu is/are supported by KSR exemplary rationale (G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention. MPEP 2141 (III).
Relevant Prior Art Directed to State of Art
Cheng et al (US 12,033,327 B2) are relevant prior art not applied in the rejection(s) above. Cheng discloses a method for processing medical chest images, the method comprising: obtaining a chest image; segmenting the chest image based on a machine-learned rib segmentation model to obtain a rib segmentation result, wherein the rib segmentation result indicates a rib sequence identified in the chest image, and wherein segmenting the chest image based on the machine-learned rib segmentation model comprises: segmenting the chest image to determine a first region that is estimated to enclose a plurality of ribs identified in the chest image; segmenting the first region to determine one or more second regions, wherein each of the one or more second regions is associated with a respective subset of the plurality of ribs enclosed in the first region; and segmenting each of the one or more second regions to identify individual ribs located in the each of the one or more second regions; segmenting the chest image based on a machine-learned lung field segmentation model to obtain a lung field segmentation result, wherein the lung field segmentation result indicates one or more lung fields identified in the chest image; determining, whether a predetermined set of one or more specific ribs overlaps with the one or more lung fields according to the rib segmentation result and the lung field segmentation result; and determining a quality of the chest image in accordance with whether the predetermined set of one or more specific ribs overlaps with the one or more lung fields.
Inoue (US 2014/0079306 A1) are relevant prior art not applied in the rejection(s) above. Inoue discloses a region extraction apparatus comprising: a three-dimensional medical image obtainment unit that obtains a three-dimensional medical image of a chest; a bronchial structure extraction unit that extracts a bronchial structure representing a structure of a bronchus or bronchi from the three-dimensional medical image obtained by the three-dimensional medical image obtainment unit; a divided lung region obtainment unit that divides, based on the divergence of the bronchial structure extracted by the bronchial structure extraction unit, the bronchial structure into a plurality of divided bronchial structures, and obtains a plurality of divided lung regions based on the plurality of divided bronchial structures; a distance image generation unit that generates, based on the plurality of divided lung regions, a distance image based on a distance between each voxel in an entire region excluding at least one of the plurality of divided lung regions and each of the plurality of divided lung regions; and a border non-existing region extraction unit that extracts, based on the distance image generated by the distance image generation unit, a border non-existing region, which does not include any borders of the plurality of divided lung regions.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONGBONG NAH whose telephone number is (571) 272-1361. The examiner can normally be reached M - F: 9:00 AM - 5:30 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, ONEAL MISTRY can be reached on 313-446-4912. 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.
/JONGBONG NAH/Examiner, Art Unit 2674
/ONEAL R MISTRY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2674
Prosecution Insights