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 .
DETAILED ACTION
The response received on 8/11/2026 has been placed in the file and was considered by the examiner. An action on the merit follows.
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed on 2026 August 11 have been fully considered. Response to these amendments is provided below.
Summary of Amendment/ Arguments and Examiner’s Response:
The applicant has added two claims. In the remarks on page 7-8 the applicant states that the prior rejections are deficient for failing to present prima facie cases of obviousness. On page 8, the applicant begins with a first argument that there is no motivation to combine Strommer reference with the Krimsky reference. On pages 9-10, the applicant recites and summarizes a portion of the MPEP. ON page 10, the applicant cites the previous rejection, stating that the motivation for providing a robust safer system would not occur because the combination would “(i) change the principle(s) of operation of the Strommer reference and (ii) render the device of the Strommer reference inoperable.”
The examiner disagrees. The applicant has not provided immediate evidence as to why the operation would change and render the device inoperable. The applicant merely provides a statement that it would occur. Having a user input would not change the operation of Strommer; it would simply be an added feature that is operable, because having a user input in a computer system is well-known and established.
On pages 10-11, the applicant summarizes Strommer, then argues that the references fails to disclose or teach the limitation “at which a tip…planning.”
The examiner disagrees. Again, the applicant merely states that the references do not teach the claimed limitation. However, neither references teach fully the cited limitation, as the references together teach the claim, as explained in the previous rejection.
On pages 11-12, the applicant states that the safe trajectory of Strommer is a different technique and fails to disclose designating a target position in a displayed image at which a tip of an ablation or radiotherapy device is to be positioned…in displayed image, and that interpolation of a boundary region is different than designating a target position.
The examiner disagrees. As stated in the previous rejection, Strommer discloses the designating a target position by disclosing the target locations of page 8, paragraphs 51-52, i.e. the argued safe trajectory. This safe trajectory is determined in response to a user input of position, which is the interpolation of a boundary region by user input of page 5, paragraph 42. The applicant appears to be arguing that the user input that is selected is an attempt by the user to designate the target positions. This is not what is currently claimed in claim 1. If the applicant wishes for the claim to be interpreted in such a manner, the applicant should provide language in the claims. However, as currently claimed, claim 1 is taught by the previous prior art. Even so, it appears if the applicant is arguing motivation, not disclosure, so the examiner is unsure as to what the applicant is arguing in the above statement.
On pages 12-14, the applicant cites many portions of the Krimsky reference and argues that the Krimsky reference target location is adjacent to a luminal network, and thus one of ordinary skill in the art would not change Strommer to veer off the “safe trajectory”.
The examiner disagrees. User inputs are often used as a response to automation to ensure the algorithm is correct or used as starting points. There is no “veering” from a safe trajectory in the previous combination; in fact, the user input ensures a safe trajectory. Furthermore, Krimsky’s disclosure of the target location being adjacent to a luminal network is irrelevant. Both references are regarding pathways in surgery and therefore are combinable. It is noted that Krimsky’s simple disclosure of a user inputting any location in the displayed 3D image as disclosed in page 8, paragraph 74, can be used in combination with Strommer, in which the interpolation selected position disclosed by Strommer is not disclosed as being selected in a displayed image. Krimsky discloses selecting positions in a displayed image. Therefore, the references are combinable in multiple ways, and with this interpretation, there also would be no veering of the safe trajectory path, since the trajectory would remain unchanged.
On pages 15-16, the applicant cites portions of Krimsky and argues that Krimsky uses different techniques.
The examiner never cited Krimsky as teaching the cited techniques. If the applicant wishes for certain limitations to be considered in the claims, the applicant should provide the limitation in the claim.
On page 15-16, the applicant argues that the principle of operation would be changed in Strommer, and that Strommer is constrained to the safe path alignment.
Again, the examiner disagrees. There is no constraint or restriction in Strommer that excludes a user inputting position for providing data for the safe path. The safe path alignment occurs after the safe path is determined. Strommer’s safe path alignment does not clash whatsoever with allowing a user input.
On page 17, the applicant states that the modification would render Strommer inoperable.
The examiner disagrees. As explained above and the previous rejection, the modification is proper. The applicant appears to argue an interpretation of the combination that was not made in the previous rejection.
On page 17, the applicant states that the references both fail to disclose the above argued limitation, without any support as to why.
As disclosed in the previous rejection, in the arguments, and below, the references teach the limitations in the claims.
ON page 18, the applicant argues that the other references do not cure the deficiencies. The applicant further states no motivation was provided.
There are no deficiencies to cure; therefore, the rejection follows below. The motivation was provided, as cited by the applicant in the remarks on page 10.
On pages 19-20, the applicant provides more generic arguments regarding hindsight and again repeats there was no motivation provided in the previous rejection.
Again, the motivation was cited by the applicant on page 10 of the remarks. In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was mmade anddoes not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
ON page 20-23, the applicant explains the addition of claims 6 and 7, and states that the Cohen reference does not disclose the first and second mode.
The examiner disagrees. Cohen teaches the modes explained in the previous rejection and as explained below. The applicant’s argument appears to revolve around how and when the modes are utilized but does not provide any limitations in the claims for the arguments to be valid and considered. If the applicant wishes for certain limitations to be considered, the applicant should provide the language the claims.
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.
It is noted that claims 6 and 7 are considered eligible subject matter, for the same reasons that claim 1 was considered eligible in the office action dated 5/12/2026.
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 1, 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20080091171 (Strommer et al) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication NO. 20180055582 (Krimsky).
Regarding claim 1, Strommer et al discloses an image processing apparatus (fig. 5, item 150) for supporting an ablation or radiotherapy process or planning, comprising: one or more processors (fig.5, item 178) that operate to: determine at least one region of interest (fig. 6, item 210) in an image, a superimposed image of fig. 6, item 210 (page 10, paragraph 72), subject to an ablation or radiotherapy process or ablation or radiotherapy planning (page 9, paragraph 65), wherein the determination includes automatically identifying, by the one or more processors, the at least one region of interest in the image such that: (i) the one or more processors calculate and determine the at least one region of interest in the image using image processing techniques (fig. 6, item 210, page 10, paragraph 72), or (ii) the one or more processors determine the at least one treating zone or target shown in the at least one image by processing the at least one image; calculate at least one medial line of the determined at least one region of interest (fig. 5, item 216); cause a display to display the image (fig. 3D) and to concurrently display the at least one medial line and a border line of the determined at least one region of interest, the 3D model (fig. 5, item 172, page 7, paragraph 51) superimposed on the displayed image (page 8, paragraph 60); and designate a target position in the displayed image, at which a tip of an ablation or radiotherapy device is to be positioned, i.e. the display of the target locations of page 8, paragraphs 51-52), in response to receiving a user input for selecting a position (fig. 6, item 212, page 5, paragraph 42).
Strommer et al does not disclose expressly designated target positions are in response to receiving a user input for selecting a position in the displayed image.
Krimsky et al discloses designated target positions are in response to receiving a user input for selecting a position in the displayed 3D model image (fig. 5A, item 510).
Strommer et al and Krimsky et al 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 allow user input on the displayed image to designate target positions.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to provide a more robust, safer system by allowing the user to indicate a desired location.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the apparatus of Strommer et al with the input of Krimsky et al to obtain the invention as specified in claim 1.
Regarding claim 5, Strommer et al discloses the processor further operates one or more processors further operate to: change, based on a user input, the determined at least one region of interest, by inputting another image into the process of fig. 6, and thus a user inputs new images and changes the region of interest calculated in fig. 5, item 210; calculate, in response to a change of the determined at least one region of interest, at least one new medial line based on the changed at least one region of interest (fig. 6, item 216); and display the at least one new calculated medial line (fig. 5, item 172).
Regarding claim 6, Strommer et al discloses an image processing apparatus (fig. 5, item 150) for supporting an ablation or radiotherapy process or planning, comprising: one or more processors (fig.5, item 178) that operate to: determine at least one region of interest (fig. 6, item 210) in an image, a superimposed image of fig. 6, item 210 (page 10, paragraph 72), subject to an ablation or radiotherapy process or ablation or radiotherapy planning (page 9, paragraph 65), wherein the determination includes automatically identifying, by the one or more processors, the at least one region of interest in the image such that: (i) the one or more processors calculate and determine the at least one region of interest in the image using image processing techniques (fig. 6, item 210, page 10, paragraph 72), or (ii) the one or more processors determine the at least one treating zone or target shown in the at least one image by processing the at least one image; calculate at least one medial line of the determined at least one region of interest (fig. 5, item 216); cause a display to display the image (fig. 3D) and to concurrently display the at least one medial line and a border line of the determined at least one region of interest, the 3D model (fig. 5, item 172, page 7, paragraph 51) superimposed on the displayed image (page 8, paragraph 60); and designate a target position in the displayed image, at which a tip of an ablation or radiotherapy device is to be positioned, i.e. the display of the target locations of page 8, paragraphs 51-52), in response to receiving a user input for selecting a position (fig. 6, item 212, page 5, paragraph 42), the target position being in or on the calculated at least one medial line, as displayed of page 8, paragraphs 51-52.
Strommer et al does not disclose selecting a position in the displayed image.
Krimsky et al discloses selecting a position in the displayed 3D model image (fig. 5A, item 510).
Strommer et al and Krimsky et al 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 allow user input on the displayed image to designate target positions.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to provide a more robust, user-friendly system by allowing the user to directly indicate a desired location.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the apparatus of Strommer et al with the input of Krimsky et al to obtain the invention as specified in claim 6.
Claims 2, 3 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Strommer et al in view of Krimsky et al, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20150282890 (Cohen et al).
Regarding claim 2, Strommer et al (as modified by Krimsky et al) discloses all of the claimed elements as set forth above and incorporated herein by reference.
Strommer et al (as modified by Krimsky et al) does not disclose expressly the one or more processors operate to designate the target position so that the target position is in or on the calculated at least one medial line based on the selected position, in a case that the selected position is outside or off of the calculated at least one medial line.
Cohen et al discloses one or more processors operate to designate the target position so that the target position is in or on the calculated at least one medial line based on the selected position/ cursor location (page 30, paragraph 852), in a case that the selected position is outside or off of the calculated blood vessel line (page 31, paragraph 854), corresponding to the medial line (page 30, paragraph 52).
Strommer et al (as modified by Krimsky et al) & Cohen et al are combinable because they are from the same field of endeavor, i.e. medical image processing.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to force target feature points on the line.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to provide a more robust system by reducing selection error.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the apparatus of Strommer et al (as modified by Krimsky et al) with target point being on the line of Cohen to obtain the invention as specified in claim 2.
Claim 3 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 2. Thus, the arguments analogous to that presented above for claim 2 are equally applicable to claim 3. Claim 3 distinguishes from claim 2 only in that claim 3 provides claim 2 in a first mode, and additionally claims designating, in a second mode, the target position as the selected position, in response to the selected point being inside or on the calculated at least one medial line. Cohen et al teaches further this feature, i.e. designating, in a second mode, the target position as the selected position, in response to the selected point being inside or on the calculated at least one medial line (page 18, paragraph 638, 655, page 31, paragraph 854).
Claim 7 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 3. Thus, the arguments analogous to that presented above for claim 3 are equally applicable to claim 7. Claim 6 distinguishes from claim 3 only in that claim 7 is a broader version of claim 3, omitting “wherein the determination includes…image”. Therefore, prior art applies.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Strommer et al in view of Krimsky et al, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S Patent Application Publication No. 20130287275 (Stiles et al).
Regarding claim 4, Strommer et al (as modified by Krimsky et al) discloses all of the claimed elements as set forth above and incorporated herein by reference.
Strommer et al (as modified by Krimsky et al) does not disclose expressly when determining the at least one region of interest, determine the region of interest as a three dimensional (3D) region of interest using a segmentation algorithm.
Stiles et al discloses when determining the at least one region of interest (fig. 8, item 222), determine the region of interest as a three dimensional (3D) region of interest, because the selected region is from 3D data (fig. 8, item 214, image, page 6, paragraph 58) using a segmentation algorithm, (fig. 8, “automatic”). when determining the at least one region of interest, determine the region of interest as a three dimensional (3D) region of interest using a segmentation algorithm.
Strommer et al (as modified by Krimsky et al) & Stiles et al 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 have a 3D region of interest.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to provide a more robust system by accommodating multiple types of inputs.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the apparatus of Strommer et al (as modified by Krimsky et al) with 3D region of interests of Stiles et al to obtain the invention as specified in claim 4.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
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 8/31/2026
Prosecution Insights