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 01/03/2025 and 08/06/2025 has/have been considered by the examiner.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it has phrases “The disclosure relates” and “In some embodiments”. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claims 48, 55, and 61 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claims 48, 55 and 61, the term “a vascular legion” should read -- “a vascular region --.
Note: no definition has been found in specification for the term.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 46-47, 53-54 and 60 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The term “substantially opposite” in claims 46 and 53 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially opposite” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For examination purpose, the term has been interpreted as “opposite”.
The term “relatively weighted” in claims 47, 54 and 60 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “relatively weighted” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For examination purpose, the term has been interpreted as “weighted”.
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.
Claim(s) 42-45, 48-51, 55-59 and 61 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Auvray et al (US 20140371578 A1), hereinafter Auvray in view of Lavi et al (WO 2017199245 A1), hereinafter Lavi.
-Regarding claim 42, Auvray discloses a method of choosing a viewing angle for an image, the method implemented by a system of one or more processors ([0026], “achieved by the processor”; [0116], “a data processor”; [0124]), and the method comprising (Abstract; FIGS. 1-2; [0016], “optimal views are selected ..”; [0054]-[0055], “select”; [0078], “optimizer”; [0122]-[0123]) : receiving a selection of a target region of a vascular model of a vasculature (FIGS. 1-2; [0019]; [0032]; [0071], “… section of interest (SOI) … vascular section of vasculature 115”; [0073], “registration”; [0080]-[0085]; [0108], “vasculature model”; [0109], “vasculature at the region of interest”; [0114]); determining a viewing angle for viewing the target region, wherein determining the viewing angle comprises evaluating a plurality of images associated with different viewing angles based on a cost function (FIG. 1, optimizer 260; [0027], “angular closeness score … defined by a decreasing function”; [32]-[0033]; [0078], “goodness of view scores”; [0089], “goodness of view standards”; [0090], “SOI segments .. neighboring section” [0103], “in terms of angular closeness … constrains optimization with respect to overlap, foreshortening, and tortuosity to a user-definably angular region around the currently displayed angiography”; [0104]-[0105]), wherein the cost function constraints overlap of the target region with other regions of the vascular model, and wherein the determined viewing angle is selected based on the cost function ([0020]-[0024]; [103], “enforce a further goodness of view standard defined in terms of angular closeness… optimization with respect to overlap, foreshortening, and tortuosity to a user-definably angular region …”); and providing the viewing angle for use in imaging the target region (Abstract; FIGS. 1-2; [0015]; [0054]; [0078]; [0101]).
Auvray does not disclose wherein the cost function compares one or more of contrast distribution associated with contrast injection events. However, Auvray does disclose that a contrast agent is administered to a patient prior to the image acquisition. Contrast agent accumulates in the vasculature and so confers opacity to the vasculature, and the contrast agent carrying blood is flowing through those vessels and branching points, thereby dispersing the contrast agent throughout the vasculature down to its branches and sub-branches.
In the same field of endeavor, Lavi teaches a method for a method for compositing together of model- linked vascular data from a plurality of 2-D angiography images (Lavi: Abstract; FIGS. 1A-4B). Lavi further teaches determining the viewing angle comprises evaluating a plurality of images associated with different viewing angles based on a cost function, wherein the cost function compares one or more of contrast distribution associated with contrast injection events (Lavi: Page 18, last paragraph, “… a view angle is automatically selected as a view angle based on the selected segments of interest, and one or more criteria for their optimal display. The criteria for optimal display optionally comprise, for example, strong contrast along the vascular extent, and/or vascular extent which is the longest in the 2-D frame of reference that the image displays …”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Auvray with the teaching of Lavi by using a cost function combined to compares one or more of contrast distribution associated with contrast injection events in order to select an optimal viewing angle for use in imaging the target region.
-Regarding claim 49, Auvray discloses a system comprising one or more processors and non-transitory computer storage media storing instructions that when executed by the one or more processors ([0026], “achieved by the processor”; [0052], “memory 250”; [0116], “computer program … execute … a data processor”; [0124]), cause the one or more processors to (Abstract; FIGS. 1-2; [0016], “optimal views are selected ..”; [0054]-[0055], “select”; [0078], “optimizer”; [0122]-[0123]) : receive a selection of a target region of a vascular model of a vasculature (FIGS. 1-2; [0019]; [0032]; [0071], “… section of interest (SOI) … vascular section of vasculature 115”; [0073], “registration”; [0080]-[0085]; [0108], “vasculature model”; [0109], “vasculature at the region of interest”; [0114]); determine a viewing angle for viewing the target region, wherein determining the viewing angle comprises evaluating a plurality of images associated with different viewing angles based on a cost function (FIG. 1, optimizer 260; [0027], “angular closeness score … defined by a decreasing function”; [32]-[0033]; [0078], “goodness of view scores”; [0089], “goodness of view standards”; [0090], “SOI segments .. neighboring section” [0103], “in terms of angular closeness … constrains optimization with respect to overlap, foreshortening, and tortuosity to a user-definably angular region around the currently displayed angiography”; [0104]-[0105]), wherein the cost function constraints overlap of the target region with other regions of the vascular model, and wherein the determined viewing angle is selected based on the cost function ([0020]-[0024]; [103], “enforce a further goodness of view standard defined in terms of angular closeness… optimization with respect to overlap, foreshortening, and tortuosity to a user-definably angular region …”); and provide the viewing angle for use in imaging the target region (Abstract; FIGS. 1-2; [0015]; [0054]; [0078]; [0101]).
Auvray does not disclose wherein the cost function compares one or more of contrast distribution associated with contrast injection events. However, Auvray does disclose that a contrast agent is administered to a patient prior to the image acquisition. Contrast agent accumulates in the vasculature and so confers opacity to the vasculature, and the contrast agent carrying blood is flowing through those vessels and branching points, thereby dispersing the contrast agent throughout the vasculature down to its branches and sub-branches.
In the same field of endeavor, Lavi teaches a method for a method for compositing together of model- linked vascular data from a plurality of 2-D angiography images (Lavi: Abstract; FIGS. 1A-4B). Lavi further teaches determining the viewing angle comprises evaluating a plurality of images associated with different viewing angles based on a cost function, wherein the cost function compares one or more of contrast distribution associated with contrast injection events (Lavi: Page 18, last paragraph, “… a view angle is automatically selected as a view angle based on the selected segments of interest, and one or more criteria for their optimal display. The criteria for optimal display optionally comprise, for example, strong contrast along the vascular extent, and/or vascular extent which is the longest in the 2-D frame of reference that the image displays …”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Auvray with the teaching of Lavi by using a cost function combined to compares one or more of contrast distribution associated with contrast injection events in order to select an optimal viewing angle for use in imaging the target region.
-Regarding claim 56, Auvray discloses Non-transitory computer storage media storing instructions that when executed by a system of one or more processors ([0026], “achieved by the processor”; [0052], “memory 250”; [0116], “computer program … execute … a data processor”; [0124]), cause the one or more processors to (Abstract; FIGS. 1-2; [0016], “optimal views are selected ..”; [0054]-[0055], “select”; [0078], “optimizer”; [0122]-[0123]) : receive a selection of a target region of a vascular model of a vasculature (FIGS. 1-2; [0019]; [0032]; [0071], “… section of interest (SOI) … vascular section of vasculature 115”; [0073], “registration”; [0080]-[0085]; [0108], “vasculature model”; [0109], “vasculature at the region of interest”; [0114]); determine a viewing angle for viewing the target region, wherein determining the viewing angle comprises evaluating a plurality of images associated with different viewing angles based on a cost function (FIG. 1, optimizer 260; [0027], “angular closeness score … defined by a decreasing function”; [32]-[0033]; [0078], “goodness of view scores”; [0089], “goodness of view standards”; [0090], “SOI segments .. neighboring section” [0103], “in terms of angular closeness … constrains optimization with respect to overlap, foreshortening, and tortuosity to a user-definably angular region around the currently displayed angiography”; [0104]-[0105]), wherein the cost function constraints overlap of the target region with other regions of the vascular model, and wherein the determined viewing angle is selected based on the cost function ([0020]-[0024]; [103], “enforce a further goodness of view standard defined in terms of angular closeness… optimization with respect to overlap, foreshortening, and tortuosity to a user-definably angular region …”); and providing the viewing angle for use in imaging the target region (Abstract; FIGS. 1-2; [0015]; [0054]; [0078]; [0101]).
Auvray does not disclose wherein the cost function compares one or more of contrast distribution associated with contrast injection events. However, Auvray does disclose that a contrast agent is administered to a patient prior to the image acquisition. Contrast agent accumulates in the vasculature and so confers opacity to the vasculature, and the contrast agent carrying blood is flowing through those vessels and branching points, thereby dispersing the contrast agent throughout the vasculature down to its branches and sub-branches.
In the same field of endeavor, Lavi teaches a method for a method for compositing together of model- linked vascular data from a plurality of 2-D angiography images (Lavi: Abstract; FIGS. 1A-4B). Lavi further teaches determining the viewing angle comprises evaluating a plurality of images associated with different viewing angles based on a cost function, wherein the cost function compares one or more of contrast distribution associated with contrast injection events (Lavi: Page 18, last paragraph, “… a view angle is automatically selected as a view angle based on the selected segments of interest, and one or more criteria for their optimal display. The criteria for optimal display optionally comprise, for example, strong contrast along the vascular extent, and/or vascular extent which is the longest in the 2-D frame of reference that the image displays …”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Auvray with the teaching of Lavi by using a cost function combined to compares one or more of contrast distribution associated with contrast injection events in order to select an optimal viewing angle for use in imaging the target region.
-Regarding claims 43, 50 and 57, Auvray in view of Lavi teaches the method of claim 42, the system of claim 49 and the non-transitory computer storage media of claim 56. The combination further teaches wherein evaluating the images comprises comparing at least two images to a third image based on the cost function, and wherein the determined viewing angle is associated with the third image (Auvray: FIG. 1; [0022]-[0024]; [0089], “optimized view based on a weighted average or any combination of those pre-defined goodness of view standards … find projection directions yielding a weighted score”; [0096]-[0097]; [0102]; See Lavi as well: FIG. 1A-1B; Page 11, 4th paragraph; Page 12, 2nd paragraph; Page 18, 4th – 5th paragraphs) .
-Regarding claims 44, 51 and 58, Auvray in view of Lavi teaches the method of claim 42, the system of claim 49 and the non-transitory computer storage media of claim 56. The combination further teaches wherein the overlap of the target region with other regions is reduced based on the cost function (Auvray: [0021], “The standard or the plurality of standards accounts for any one of the following or a combination or average thereof”; [0022], “low degree of overlaps in the part of the footprint representing the section of interest”).
-Regarding claims 45, 52 and 59, Auvray in view of Lavi teaches the method of claim 42, the system of claim 49 and the non-transitory computer storage media of claim 56. The combination further teaches wherein the cost function penalizes angles from which the target regions overlaps with the other regions (Auvray: [0021]-[0022]; the less the overlap, the higher the score, and the optimal the view angle ) .
-Regarding claims 48, 55 and 61, Auvray in view of Lavi teaches the method of claim 42, the system of claim 49 and the non-transitory computer storage media of claim 56. The combination further teaches wherein the target region reflects a vascular legion (Auvray: [0016], “vascular section of current interest”; [0042]; [0071]).
Claim(s) 47, 54 and 60 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Auvray et al (US 20140371578 A1), hereinafter Auvray in view of Lavi et al (WO 2017199245 A1), hereinafter Lavi, and further in view of Senegas et al (US 20150216440 A1), hereinafter Senegas.
-Regarding claims 47, 54 and 60, Auvray in view of Lavi teaches the method of claim 42, the system of claim 49 and the non-transitory computer storage media of claim 56.
Auvray in view of Lavi does not teach wherein contrast distribution is relatively weighted with a measure of contrast distribution greater than a threshold
However, Senegas is an analogous art pertinent to the problem to be solved in this application and teaches a method for contrast signal score calculation for medical imaging (Senegas: Abstract; FIGS. 1-6). Senegas further teaches wherein contrast distribution is relatively weighted with a measure of contrast distribution greater than a threshold (Senegas: [0039]; “classifies the dominant contrast type based on the contrast signal scores. For example, an illustrative dominant contrast type classification system for considered contrast types of proton density weighted contrast (PDW), T1 weighted contrast (T1W), and T2 weighted contrast (T2W) employs a series of threshold numbers … (see table));
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Auvray in view of Lavi with the teaching of Senegas by using weighted contrast calculate contrast scores in order to classify contrast type for optimal view angle selection.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 46 and 53 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, and overcome claim rejections in above section of “Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112”.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Yoo et al (US 20140086461 A1), hereinafter Yoo teaches a method determining a time-based index for blood circulation from imaging data.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to XIAO LIU whose telephone number is (571)272-4539. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday and Alternate Fridays 8:30-4:30.
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, Jennifer Mehmood can be reached at (571) 272-2976. 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.
/XIAO LIU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2664
Prosecution Insights