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 .
Clarity of the record - Claim Interpretation
Per MPEP 2181 the claims have been reviewed for limitations that invoke 112(f) means plus function interpretations. In review, claims 7 and 8 recite the term ‘means’ but in a manner that is simply part of the sentence structure and is not interpreted as attempting to or intending to invoke a means plus function interpretation. Further claims 1-6 and 16-20 recite a ‘processing unit’, while also being present in the preamble of the claims. The MPEP allows for interpretation of the limitations in the preamble, and in this instance, the limitation is construed as being a term ‘processing unit’ that would be recognized by one of skill in the art for having sufficiently definite structure. This is supported at least in disclosure paragraph 23 and in the handling of limitations like CPU and GPU for one of skill in the art. Therefore, the limitation is interpreted by the Examiner as not invoking a 112(f) interpretation, and therefore also not being indefinite with regards to the presence in the preamble as discussed in the MPEP. Should the applicant wish to invoke a 112(f) interpretation for either scenario in the future, they may make the record and claimed limitations clear to this intent.
Clarity of the record – Program per se
Per MPEP 2106.03 the claims have been evaluated for appropriately being drawn towards a statutory category. Specifically with concern for claims 16-20 the claims were evaluated for program per se concerns. However, claim 16 claiming a computer program product is directed to a product and is not ineligible (the claim is eligible) based on claiming a computer program per se. The explicit inclusion of physical structures (i.e., processor and memory) excludes an embodiment that is a computer program per se.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 1-4, 9-12 and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Luo (US Pub 20060023929, see IDS).
Re claims 1 and 16, Luo discloses a device for interpreting an X-ray image comprising a processing unit configured to; and the associated computer program product (Par 84) comprising a processing unit (Par 84) operably connected to a memory (Par 84) having sets of instructions which when executed on the processing unit carries out a method (Par 84) of interpreting of an X-ray image comprising:
receive image data representing the X-ray image (Fig 1B el 10/11; Par 21, 35-36 – x-ray, radiography imaging);
determine an anatomic structure within the X-ray image (Fig 1B el 10/11, Fig 2A-B; Par 18-21, 35-36, 42, 47- chest imaging, lung, spine imaging);
identify at least two features of the anatomical structure and a relation of the features relative to each other (Fig 1B el 14/12- midline at centerlines; Par 35-36, 42-45; Fig 5 el 50-52, 54-55, Par 47-48, 55-56, 61-63), wherein the relation of the features is selected from the group consisting of location information (Fig 1B el 14/12- midline at centerlines; Par 35-36, 42-45; Fig 5 el 50-52, 54-55, Par 47-48, 55-56, 61-63 – spatial relations and locations), size information (Fig 1B el 14/12- midline at centerlines; Par 35-36, 42-45; Fig 5 el 50-52, 54-55, Par 47-48, 55-56, 61-63 – length and size considerations) or a combination thereof (Fig 1B el 14/12- midline at centerlines; Par 35-36, 42-45; Fig 5 el 50-52, 54-55, Par 47-48, 55-56, 61-63); and
determine an imaging direction relative to the anatomic structure (Fig 1B el 13, Par 35; Fig 5 output view decision, Par 48) utilizing the relation of the identified features relative to each other (Fig 1B el 13, Par 35; Fig 5 output view decision, Par 48 – determination of PA/AP/Lateral view).
Re claim 9, Luo discloses a method of interpreting of an X-ray image comprising:
generating image data of an X-ray image using an X-ray imaging device (Fig 1B el 10/11; Par 3, 21, 35-36 – x-ray, radiography imaging);
determining an anatomic structure within image data (Fig 1B el 10/11, Fig 2A-B; Par 18-21, 35-36, 42, 47- chest imaging, lung, spine imaging);
identifying at least two features of the anatomical structure and a relation of the features relative to each other(Fig 1B el 14/12- midline at centerlines; Par 35-36, 42-45; Fig 5 el 50-52, 54-55, Par 47-48, 55-56, 61-63), wherein the relation of the features is selected from the group consisting of location information (Fig 1B el 14/12- midline at centerlines; Par 35-36, 42-45; Fig 5 el 50-52, 54-55, Par 47-48, 55-56, 61-63 – spatial relations and locations), size information (Fig 1B el 14/12- midline at centerlines; Par 35-36, 42-45; Fig 5 el 50-52, 54-55, Par 47-48, 55-56, 61-63 – length and size considerations) or a combination thereof (Fig 1B el 14/12- midline at centerlines; Par 35-36, 42-45; Fig 5 el 50-52, 54-55, Par 47-48, 55-56, 61-63); and
determining an imaging direction relative to the anatomic structure (Fig 1B el 13, Par 35; Fig 5 output view decision, Par 48) utilizing the relation of the identified features relative to each other (Fig 1B el 13, Par 35; Fig 5 output view decision, Par 48 – determination of PA/AP/Lateral view).
Re claim 2 and 17, Luo discloses the device of claim 1 and the computer program product of claim 16, and further wherein the processing unit is further configured to determine the imaging direction relative to the anatomical structure (Fig 1B el 13, Par 35; Fig 5 output view decision, Par 48 – determination of PA/AP/Lateral view) utilizing a geometrical aspect for each of the at least two features of the anatomical structure (Fig 1B el 14/12- midline at centerlines; Par 42-45; Fig 5 el 50-52, 54-55, Par 47-48, 55-56, 61-63 – considerations of -line, midpoint and other noted characteristics), wherein the geometrical aspect is selected from the group consisting of a point, a line, an arc, a center point, an axis, a cylinder surface, a ball surface or a combination thereof (Fig 1B el 14/12- midline at centerlines; Par 42-45; Fig 5 el 50-52, 54-55, Par 47-48, 55-56, 61-63 – considerations of -line, midpoint and other noted characteristics).
Re claim 10, Luo discloses the method of claim 9, further comprising determining the imaging direction relative to the anatomical structure (Fig 1B el 13, Par 35; Fig 5 output view decision, Par 48 – determination of PA/AP/Lateral view) utilizing a geometrical aspect for each of the at least two features of the anatomical structure (Fig 1B el 14/12- midline at centerlines; Par 42-45; Fig 5 el 50-52, 54-55, Par 47-48, 55-56, 61-63 – considerations of -line, midpoint and other noted characteristics), wherein the geometrical aspect is selected from the group consisting of a point, a line, an arc, a center point, an axis, a cylinder surface, a ball surface or a combination thereof (Fig 1B el 14/12- midline at centerlines; Par 42-45; Fig 5 el 50-52, 54-55, Par 47-48, 55-56, 61-63 – considerations of -line, midpoint and other noted characteristics).
Re claims 3 and 18, Luo discloses the device of claim 1 and computer program product of claim 16, and further wherein the processing unit is further configured to: determine a feature location for each of the at least two features of the anatomical structure (Par 35, 47-53); and compare the feature location with a location of a feature in a reference image (Par 35, 47-53).
Re claim 11, Luo discloses the method of claim 9, further comprising: determining a feature location for each of the at least two features of the anatomical structure (Par 35, 47-53); and comparing the feature location with a location of a feature in a reference image (Par 35, 47-53).
Re claim 4, Luo discloses the device of claim 1, and further wherein the processing unit is further configured to determine the anatomical structure based on edge detection (Par 52, 60-64).
Re claim 12, Luo discloses the method of claim 9, further comprising: detecting an edge in the image data (Par 52, 60-64); and determining the anatomical structure based on the detected edge (Par 52, 60-64).
Re claim 19, Luo discloses the computer program product of claim 16, and further comprising a set of instructions which when executed on the processor unit carries out a method of: detecting an edge in the image data (Par 52, 60-64); and determining the anatomical structure based on the detected edge (Par 52, 60-64).
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.
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luo as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Pries (NPL “Deep Morphing: Detecting bone structures in fluoroscopic X-ray images with prior knowledge”, see IDS).
Re claim 7, Luo discloses the device of claim 1, but fails however to explicitly disclose wherein the anatomic structure is determined by means of a neural net.
This design is however disclosed by Pries. Pries discloses wherein the anatomic structure is determined by means of a neural net (Sections 1-2; DNN and CNN).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to modify the disclosure of Luo in order to incorporate the image recognition design of Pries based on the rationale of the use of a known technique to improve similar designs in the same way, in this instance using the neural approach allows for the use of a known technique with understood functionality to one of skill in the art to be able to increase the number of images evaluated and the speed at which the evaluation in completed, allowing for more accurate determinations from the imaging analysis.
Re claim 8, Luo discloses the device of claim 1, but fails however to explicitly disclose wherein the anatomical structure is determined by means of a neural net in combination with a point distribution model.
This design is however disclosed by Pries. Pries discloses wherein the anatomical structure is determined by means of a neural net (Section 2-3.2, 4.2, A.2) in combination with a point distribution model (Section 2-3.2, 4.2, A.2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to modify the disclosure of Luo in order to incorporate the image recognition design of Pries based on the rationale of the use of a known technique to improve similar designs in the same way, in this instance using the neural approach allows for the use of a known technique with understood functionality to one of skill in the art to be able to increase the number of images evaluated and the speed at which the evaluation in completed, allowing for more accurate determinations from the imaging analysis.
Claims 5-6, 13-15 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luo as applied to claims 1, 9 and 16 above, and further in view of Feilkas (herein after Fe)(US Pub 20130094742, see IDS).
Re claims 5 and 20, Luo discloses the device of claim 1 and the associated computer program product of claim 16, but fails however to explicitly disclose wherein the processing unit is further configured to determine a 3D orientation of the anatomical structure relative to an imaging direction of the X-ray image.
This design is however disclosed by Fe. Fe discloses wherein the processing unit is further configured to determine a 3D orientation of the anatomical structure relative to an imaging direction of the X-ray image (Par 19-21, 23, 29, 42, 114-117).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to modify the disclosure of Luo in order to incorporate the orienting of the x-ray imaging of Fe based on the rationale of the use of a known technique to improve similar designs in the same way, in this instance the finding and mapping of anatomical points to 3D model allows for the consideration and evaluation of the image as it relates to the actual size and form of the body under evaluation thereby improving diagnostic properties and efficiency.
Re claim 6, Luo discloses the device of claim 1, but fails however to explicitly disclose wherein the processing unit is further configured to receive a reference direction, to determine a deviation between the imaging direction and the reference direction.
This design is however disclosed by Fe. Fe discloses wherein the processing unit is further configured to receive a reference direction (Par 19-21, 23, 29, 42, 114-117), to determine a deviation between the imaging direction and the reference direction (Par 10, 19-21, 23, 29, 42, 114-117 – calibration to actual direction based on alignment).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to modify the disclosure of Luo in order to incorporate the deviations from reference values of Fe based on the rationale of the use of a known technique to improve similar designs in the same way, in this instance the finding and mapping of anatomical points to reference model allows for the consideration and evaluation of the image as it relates spatially to the actual or expected body under evaluation, thereby allowing for the consideration of dynamic calibration adjustments to improve diagnostic properties and efficiency.
Re claim 13, Luo discloses the method of claim 9, but fails however to explicitly disclose further comprising determining a 3D orientation of the anatomical structure relative to the imaging direction.
This design is however disclosed by Fe. Fe discloses determining a 3D orientation of the anatomical structure relative to the imaging direction (Par 19-21, 23, 29, 42, 114-117).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to modify the disclosure of Luo in order to incorporate the orienting of the x-ray imaging of Fe based on the rationale of the use of a known technique to improve similar designs in the same way, in this instance the finding and mapping of anatomical points to 3D model allows for the consideration and evaluation of the image as it relates to the actual size and form of the body under evaluation thereby improving diagnostic properties and efficiency.
Re claim 14, Luo discloses the method of claim 9, but fails however to explicitly disclose further comprising: receiving a reference direction; and determining a deviation between the imaging direction and the reference direction.
This design is however disclosed by Fe. Fe discloses further comprising: receiving a reference direction (Par 10, 19-21, 23, 29, 42, 114-117 – calibration to actual direction based on alignment); and determining a deviation between the imaging direction and the reference direction (Par 10, 19-21, 23, 29, 42, 114-117 – calibration to actual direction based on alignment).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to modify the disclosure of Luo in order to incorporate the deviations from reference values of Fe based on the rationale of the use of a known technique to improve similar designs in the same way, in this instance the finding and mapping of anatomical points to reference model allows for the consideration and evaluation of the image as it relates spatially to the actual or expected body under evaluation, thereby allowing for the consideration of dynamic calibration adjustments to improve diagnostic properties and efficiency.
Re claim 15, the combined disclosure of Luo and Fe as a whole discloses the method of claim 14, Fe further discloses further comprising: determining movements of the X-ray imaging device for all available degrees of freedom (Par 31, 48, 51, 103, 114-117 – calibration and adjustment matrices, imaging source design); and providing adjustment instructions for repositioning the X-ray imaging device to generate the X-ray image having a desired imaging direction (Par 31, 48, 51, 103, 114-117 – calibration and adjustment matrices).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL R NEFF whose telephone number is (571)270-1848. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 5:30am-2:00pm.
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, Hannah S. Wang can be reached at (571) 272-9018. 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.
/MICHAEL R NEFF/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2631
Prosecution Insights