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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record on file.
Information Disclosure Statement(s)
The Information disclosure statement (IDS) filed on July 02nd, 2025 has been acknowledged and considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities:
“the steps of the method” in lines 6-7, of claim 17, should be read as “according to the method” to follow proper antecedent basis since there is no first instantiation of “steps of” previously recited. Appropriate correction is required to avoid 112(b) antecedent basis issue.
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.
Claims 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more nor an integration of the judicial exceptions into a practical application. The limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover mental process (concept performed in a human mind, including as observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). The claimed invention simply perform generating a data of a vessel mesh to be input into some processing to generate an aneurysm region. See analysis below for more details.
Regarding Independent Claim 1 and its dependent claims 1-17,
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 1 is directed to a process/method, which falls within one of the four statutory categories (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter). Please see MPEP §2106.04.
Step 2A Prong 1 Analysis: Claim 1 recites, in part:
“generating a separating plane based on the at least one input point; and
generating the aneurysm region based on the separating plane.”
The limitations as drafted, are processes that, under broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the performance of the limitation in the mind which falls within the “Mental Processes/Mathematical Concept” grouping of abstract ideas. Please see MPEP §2106.04. The limitations of:
“generating a separating plane based on the at least one input point” is a step a human mind can perform, under BRI, using pen and paper through a process of observation and evaluation such as, the human mind can observe some data/information (images, video, input point already given or resulted outcome/output of data/information, etc.) and evaluate them to make a determination/identification to segregate plane to generate such a separating plane.
“generating the aneurysm region based on the separating plane” is a step a human mind can perform, under BRI, using pen and paper through a process of observation and evaluation such as, the human mind can observe some data/information (images, video, input point, some data about separating plane already given or resulted outcome/output of data/information, etc.) and evaluate them to make a determination/identification to generate a region.
Notes: under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), mental process (thinking) “can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011): "methods which can be performed mentally, or which are the equivalent of human mental work, are unpatentable abstract ideas the ‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that are open to all." (citing Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 [1972]). See also Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965 ("mental processes and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work’" (quoting Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 175 USPQ at 675).
The courts do not distinguish between mental processes that are performed entirely in the human mind and mental processes that require a human to use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper or a slide rule) to perform the claim limitation. See, e.g., Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 65, 175 USPQ at 674-75, 674; Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1139, 120 USPQ2d 1473, 1474 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Nor do the courts distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer, generic circuit or device, or the likes. See " Versata Dev. Group v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1335, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1702 (Fed. Cir. 2015). See also Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1318, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (‘with the exception of generic computer-implemented steps, there is nothing in the claims themselves that foreclose them from being performed by a human, mentally or with pen and paper.’’).
Because both product/device and process claims may recite a "mental process", the phrase "mental processes" should be understood as referring to the type of abstract idea, and not to the statutory category of the claim. The courts have identified numerous product claims as reciting mental process-type abstract ideas, for instance the product claims to computer systems and computer-readable media in Versata Dev. Group. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 115 USPQ2d 1681 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2 Analysis: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. particular, the claim recites the following additional element(s) –
“generating a vessel mesh;
obtaining at least one input point”
The additional elements include steps of insignificant extra-solution/post-solution activities of data gathering, data generating, data transmitting, etc [acquiring data/information, transmitting data/info., outputting data/information, displaying data/info., converting data/info., generating data/info., etc] . example of overcoming: “generating data from using the output of the neural network to estimate what time the vehicle should stop to avoid hitting an obstacle”.
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim as a whole is directed to an abstract idea. Please see MPEP §2106.04.(d).III.C.
Step 2B Analysis: there are no additional elements, such as for these additional elements as indicated above, that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Please see MPEP §2106.05. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. Please see MPEP §2106.05
For all of the foregoing reasons, claim 1 does not comply with the requirements of 35 USC 101.
Accordingly, the dependent claims 2-17 do not provide elements that overcome the deficiencies of the independent claim 1.
Moreover, claim 2 recites, in part,
“receiving a first input point and a second input point from a user, and wherein the generating the separating plane comprises:
obtaining a camera viewpoint corresponding to the first input point or the second input point; and
generating the separating plane based on the camera viewpoint, the first input point, and the second input point”
Which is a mental process activity abstract idea of observation and evaluation, judgement, merely performing data gathering of receiving, obtaining data, information from sources such as input from user, or from a camera view corresponding to certain observable criteria.
“generating…input point” to be mental process abstract idea, wherein the human mind can observe some observable data/information to generating a separating plane using pen and paper.
Moreover, claim 3 recites, in part,
“obtaining an aneurysm point; and
determining an aneurysm entry point based on the aneurysm point, and wherein the generating the separating plane comprises:
generating the separating plane based on the aneurysm entry point and the at least one input point”
Which is a mental process activity abstract idea of observation and evaluation, judgement, merely performing data gathering of receiving, obtaining data, information from sources such as input from user, or from a camera view corresponding to certain observable criteria.
“determining …aneurysm point” to be mental process abstract idea, wherein the human mind can observe some observable data/information to determine an entry.
“generating …input point” to be mental process abstract idea, wherein the human mind can observe some observable data/information to generate the plane.
Moreover, claim 4 recites, in part,
“generating a vessel centerline based on an open vessel of the vessel mesh;
generating a tube mesh based on the vessel centerline;
determining an aneurysm center point based on the aneurysm point and the tube mesh;
generating an aneurysm centerline based on the open vessel and the aneurysm center point; and
determining the aneurysm entry point based on the aneurysm centerline and the tube mesh.”
“generating … vessel mesh” to be mental process abstract idea, wherein the human mind can observe some observable data/information to generate a vessel centerline.
“generating … centerline” to be mental process abstract idea, wherein the human mind can observe some observable data/information to generate the a tube mesh.
“generating … centerline” to be mental process abstract idea, wherein the human mind can observe some observable data/information to generate the a tube mesh.
“determining … mesh” to be mental process abstract idea, wherein the human mind can observe some observable data/information to determine an entry point.
Moreover, claim 5 recites, in part,
“receiving a first input point and a second input point from a user, and wherein the generating the separating plane comprises:
generating the separating plane based on the aneurysm entry point, the first input point, and the second input point.”
Which is a mental process activity abstract idea of observation and evaluation, judgement, merely performing data gathering of receiving, obtaining data, information from sources such as input from user, or from a camera view corresponding to certain observable criteria.
“generating … point” to be mental process abstract idea, wherein the human mind can observe some observable data/information to generate the separating plane.
Moreover, claim 6 recites, in part,
“ receiving a first input point from a user, and wherein the generating the separating plane comprises:
generating a first vector directed from the aneurysm entry point toward the aneurysm center point; and
generating, as the separating plane, a plane passing through the first input point with the first vector as a normal vector..”
Which is a mental process activity abstract idea of observation and evaluation, judgement, merely performing data gathering of receiving, obtaining data, information from sources such as input from user, or from a camera view corresponding to certain observable criteria.
“generating … point” to be mental process abstract idea, wherein the human mind can observe some observable data/information to generate the separating plane.
“generating … vector” to be mental process abstract idea, wherein the human mind can observe some observable data/information to generate a plane.
Moreover, claim 7 recites, in part,
“obtaining an aneurysm point, and wherein the generating the aneurysm region comprises:
obtaining a first region and a second region separated by the separating plane; and
determining a region corresponding to the aneurysm point among the first region and the second region as the aneurysm region.”
Which is a mental process activity abstract idea of observation and evaluation, judgement, merely performing data gathering of receiving, obtaining data, information from sources such as input from user, or from a camera view corresponding to certain observable criteria.
“determining … region” to be mental process abstract idea, wherein the human mind can observe some observable data/information to determine a region.
Moreover, claim 8 recites, in part,
“obtaining a normal vector of the separating plane;
generating a first vector directed from a point on the separating plane toward the aneurysm point; and
determining the aneurysm region based on dot product of the normal vector and the first vector.”
Which is a mental process activity abstract idea of observation and evaluation, judgement, merely performing data gathering of receiving, obtaining data, information from sources such as input from user, or from a camera view corresponding to certain observable criteria.
“generating … point” to be mental process abstract idea, wherein the human mind can observe some observable data/information to generate a vector.
“determining … vector” to be mental process abstract idea, wherein the human mind can observe some observable data/information to determine a region.
Moreover, claim 9 recites, in part,
“determining a direction in which a normal vector of the separating plane is directed as the aneurysm region if the dot product is equal to or greater than 0; and
inverting the separating plane and determining the direction in which a normal vector of the inverted separating plane is directed as the aneurysm region if the dot product is less than 0.”
Which is a mental process activity abstract idea of observation and evaluation, judgement, merely performing data gathering of receiving, obtaining data, information from sources such as input from user, or from a camera view corresponding to certain observable criteria.
“generating … point” to be mental process abstract idea, wherein the human mind can observe some observable data/information to generate a vector.
“determining … than 0” to be mental process abstract idea, wherein the human mind can observe some observable data/information to determine a direction according to some observable criteria/condition.
“inverting…than 0” is a step the human mind can person using a pen and paper to inverting some plane according to some observable data/information and criteria/condition.
Moreover, claim 10 recites, in part,
“obtaining a first input point, a second input point, and a third input point from a user, and wherein the method further comprises:
generating an intersection line where the separating plane contacts the vessel mesh;
maintaining the separating plan if the fist input, the second input point, and the third input point are located on the same intersection line;
and requesting re-entry of the at least one input point if the first input point, the second input point, and the third input point are not located on the same intersection line.”
Which is a mental process activity abstract idea of observation and evaluation, judgement, merely performing data gathering of receiving, obtaining data, information from sources such as input from user, or from a camera view corresponding to certain observable criteria.
“generating … mesh” to be mental process abstract idea, wherein the human mind can observe some observable data/information to generate an intersection line.
“maintain …same intersection line” to be mental process abstract idea, wherein the human mind can observe some observable data/information to maintain the plane a direction according to some observable criteria/condition.
“re-requesting …same intersection line” to be mental process abstract idea, wherein the human mind can observe some observable data/information to re-request information according to some observable criteria/condition. Part of contingence language, therefor, only one of the if statement’s limitation is the instant scope of the claim.
Moreover, claim 11 recites, in part,
“generating first candidate planes based on the separating plane; and
generating the aneurysm region using a second candidate plane among the first candidate planes.”
Which is a mental process activity abstract idea of observation and evaluation, judgement, merely performing data gathering of receiving, obtaining data, information from sources such as input from user, or from a camera view corresponding to certain observable criteria.
“generating … plane” to be mental process abstract idea, wherein the human mind can observe some observable data/information to generate candidate planes.
“generating … plane” to be mental process abstract idea, wherein the human mind can observe some observable data/information to generate the aneurysm region.
Moreover, claim 12 recites, in part,
“generating the first candidate planes by parallel translation of the separating plane in a direction of a normal vector of the separating plane by a predetermined distance range.”
Which is a mental process activity abstract idea of observation and evaluation, judgement, merely performing data gathering of receiving, obtaining data, information from sources such as input from user, or from a camera view corresponding to certain observable criteria.
“generating … distance range” to be mental process abstract idea, wherein the human mind can observe some observable data/information to generate candidate plane according to some observable criteria/condition.
Moreover, claim 13 recites, in part,
“receiving a first input point and a second input point from a user, and wherein the generating the first candidate planes comprises:
determining a straight line connecting the first input point and the second input point as a rotation axis; and
generating the first candidate planes by rotating the separating plane by a predetermined angle range using the rotation axis.”
Which is a mental process activity abstract idea of observation and evaluation, judgement, merely performing data gathering of receiving, obtaining data, information from sources such as input from user, or from a camera view corresponding to certain observable criteria.
“determining … axis” to be mental process abstract idea, wherein the human mind can observe some observable data/information to determine a line according to some observable criteria/condition.
“generating … axis” to be mental process abstract idea, wherein the human mind can observe some observable data/information to generate candidate planes according to some observable criteria/condition.
Moreover, claim 14 recites, in part,
“calculating a base length of an intersection line of the separating plane;
determining a boundary length based on the base length; and
determining, as the second candidate plane, a plane among the first candidate planes whose intersection line with the vessel mesh has a length smaller than the boundary length.”
“calculating…plane” is a mathematical calculation, operation abstract idea.
“determining …based length” to be mental process abstract idea, wherein the human mind can observe some observable data/information to determine a length according to some observable criteria/condition.
“generating … boundary length” to be mental process abstract idea, wherein the human mind can observe some observable data/information to determine a plane according to some observable criteria/condition.
Moreover, claim 15 recites, in part,
“obtaining a plurality of second candidate planes;
calculating a score for each of the plurality of second candidate plantes; and
selecting one of the plurality of second candidate planes based on the score.”
Which is a mental process activity abstract idea of observation and evaluation, judgement, merely performing data gathering of receiving, obtaining data, information from sources such as input from user, or from a camera view corresponding to certain observable criteria.
“calculating…plane” is a mathematical calculation, operation abstract idea.
“selecting … score” to be mental process abstract idea, wherein the human mind can observe some observable data/information to select plane according to some observable criteria/condition.
Moreover, claim 16 recites, in part,
“calculating the score based on at least one of a first volume of the aneurysm region obtained by one of the second candidate planes, a second volume of a parent artery region obtained by the one of the second candidate planes, and a perimeter of the intersection line between the one of the second candidate planes and the vessel mesh.”
Which is a mental process activity abstract idea of observation and evaluation, judgement, merely performing data gathering of receiving, obtaining data, information from sources such as input from user, or from a camera view corresponding to certain observable criteria.
“calculating…mesh” is a mathematical calculation, operation abstract idea.
Moreover, claim 17 recites, in part,
“An electronic device comprising:
a processor; and
a memory connected to the processor, wherein the memory is configured to store a program, wherein the processor is configured to execute the program, and wherein when the program is executed by the processor, the steps of the method of claim 1 are implemented.”
Recites generic computer components recited at high level of generality to perform their own well-known generic functions of computer components, hence, are generic additional elements.
Accordingly, the dependent claims 1-17 are not patent eligible under 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Mapping is based on the translation section of the foreign patent document.
Claims 1, 3-7, 10 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hui Gu et. al. (Foreign Patent Document “CN 116503436 A” hereinafter as “Gu”).
Regarding claim 1, Gu teaches a method for generating an aneurysm region, comprising (Title and Abstract):
generating a vessel mesh (Page 5, first 4 paragraphs, discloses “obtain the vascular model based on the aneurysm and parent artery…calculate the Voroni diagram of the vascular model” indicating a vascular model which is analogous to a vessel mesh as claimed);
obtaining at least one input point (Page 4, at Step S200, discloses “obtaining anchor points for locating the neck plane” which has the anchor points being analogous to the recited input point);
generating a separating plane based on the at least one input point (Page 4, at Step S200, discloses “obtaining anchor points for locating the neck plane” which has the anchor points being analogous to the recited input point and the neck plane to be analogous to a separating plane as claimed, since in Step 200, which discloses “using the neck plane to automatically segment the aneurysm neck”); and
generating the aneurysm region based on the separating plane (Page 4, at Step S300, which discloses “traversing the sequence points of the centerline of the blood vessel, connecting each sequence point to the position of the aneurysm…inner surface of the aneurysm” indicating an aneurysm region).
Regarding claim 3, Gu teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the method further comprises:
obtaining an aneurysm point (Page 4, at step S100, discloses “the position of the dome of the aneurysm and the centerline of the vessel are obtained”, moreover, at step S300, “obtaining the first control point and the second control point, including: traversing the sequence points of the centerline of the blood vessel” any of the points indicating a point corresponding the aneurysm, is analogous to the aneurysm point); and determining an aneurysm entry point based on the aneurysm point (Page 4, at step S100, discloses “the position of the dome of the aneurysm and the centerline of the vessel are obtained”, moreover, at step S300, “obtaining the first control point and the second control point, including: traversing the sequence points of the centerline of the blood vessel” any of the points indicating a point corresponding the aneurysm, is analogous to the aneurysm point, and the first control point is analogous to the entry point as claimed, since it’s the first point to be entered and selected for controlling), and wherein the generating the separating plane comprises:
generating the separating plane based on the aneurysm entry point and the at least one input point (Page 4, at Step S200, discloses “obtaining anchor points for locating the neck plane” which has the anchor points being analogous to the recited input point and the neck plane to be analogous to a separating plane as claimed, since in Step 200, which discloses “using the neck plane to automatically segment the aneurysm neck”).
Regarding claim 4, Gu teaches the method of claim 3, wherein the determining the aneurysm entry point comprises: generating a vessel centerline based on an open vessel of the vessel mesh (Page 5, at step S120, discloses “obtain the first closest point on the centerline of the blood vessel” which indicates generating a vessel centerline based on an open vessel, meaning a vessel has been shown for this processing, in open view; furthermore, Page 5, at Step S130, discloses “constructing a spherical neighborhood…affected area of the first centerline as the second dome”);
generating a tube mesh based on the vessel centerline (Page 5, at step S120, discloses “the blood vessel formed between the two tangent points centerline segment” indicating a tube mesh being the formed blood vessel);
determining an aneurysm center point based on the aneurysm point and the tube mesh (Page 5, in step S130, discloses “with the first tumor dome as the center of the sphere” indicating a center point regarding the aneurysm is determined based on the result of step S120 including the aneurysm point and the tube mesh being the vessel model);
generating an aneurysm centerline based on the open vessel and the aneurysm center point (Page 5, at step S120, discloses “obtain the first closest point on the centerline of the blood vessel” which indicates generating a vessel centerline based on an open vessel, meaning a vessel has been shown for this processing, in open view; furthermore, Page 5, at Step S130, discloses “constructing a spherical neighborhood…affected area of the first centerline as the second dome; which indicates generating a vessel centerline based on an open vessel, meaning a vessel has been shown for this processing, in open view; furthermore, Page 5, at Step S130, discloses “constructing a spherical neighborhood…affected area of the first centerline as the second dome”);
generating a tube mesh based on the vessel centerline (Page 5, at step S120, discloses “the blood vessel formed between the two tangent points centerline segment” indicating a tube mesh being the formed blood vessel); and
determining the aneurysm entry point based on the aneurysm centerline and the tube mesh (Page 6, 2nd paragraph, discloses “it can be understood that the relationship between the area of influence of the final centerline and the position of the final tumor top is equivalent to the relationship between the area of influence of the first centerline and the first tumor top. Find the point closest to the final tumor top in the area affected by the final centerline, and record it as the final closest point;” and in 4th paragraph, discloses “the tangential location is on the neck of the aneurysm. That is, the first control point and the second control point are located on the neck of the aneurysm” the point located on the neck of the aneurysm is analogous to the aneurysm entry point as claimed).
Regarding claim 5, Gu teaches the method of claim 4, wherein the obtaining the at least one input point comprises: receiving a first input point and a second input point from a user (Page 4, at Step S200, discloses “obtaining anchor points for locating the neck plane” which has the anchor points being analogous to the recited input point; any of the anchor points is analogous to the first input point and any of the others is analogous to the second input point, moreover, in Step S200, of Page 4, the anchor points are control points, and the control points are illustrated in Figure 1, to be input from a user, being control by the user, since it’s manually selected according to step S110 of Page 5), and wherein the generating the separating plane (Page 4, at Step S200, discloses “obtaining anchor points for locating the neck plane” which has the anchor points being analogous to the recited input point and the neck plane to be analogous to a separating plane as claimed, since in Step 200, which discloses “using the neck plane to automatically segment the aneurysm neck”) comprises:
generating the separating plane based on the aneurysm entry point, the first input point, and the second input point (Page 5, 1st 2 paragraphs, discloses “the sequence point is connected with the position of the aneurysm top, and the connecting line intersects at the intersection point…the cut point is on the neck of the aneurysm, that is, in the plane of the neck…obtaining the first control point and the second control point, locate the neck plane” indicating the plane separating the regions corresponding to the first and second control points and also the point at the neck of the aneurysm).
Regarding claim 6, Gu teaches the method of claim 4, wherein the obtaining the at least one input point (Page 4, at Step S200, discloses “obtaining anchor points for locating the neck plane” which has the anchor points being analogous to the recited input point) comprises:
receiving a first input point from a user (Page 4, at Step S200, discloses “obtaining anchor points for locating the neck plane” which has the anchor points being analogous to the recited input point; any of the anchor points is analogous to the first input point and any of the others is analogous to the second input point, moreover, in Step S200, of Page 4, the anchor points are control points, and the control points are illustrated in Figure 1, to be input from a user, being control by the user, since it’s manually selected according to step S110 of Page 5), and wherein the generating the separating plane (Page 4, at Step S200, discloses “obtaining anchor points for locating the neck plane” which has the anchor points being analogous to the recited input point and the neck plane to be analogous to a separating plane as claimed, since in Step 200, which discloses “using the neck plane to automatically segment the aneurysm neck”) comprises:
generating a first vector directed from the aneurysm entry point toward the aneurysm center point (Page 6, at steps S431 and S432, discloses “calculate the line vector between the intermediate point and the first control point” here, the first control point is analogous to the aneurysm entry point, as discussed above, and the intermediate point representing a middle information point or center point corresponding to the aneurysm hence, is analogous to the recited aneurysm center point); and generating, as the separating plane, a plane passing through the first input point with the first vector as a normal vector (Page 4, step S200, discloses “obtaining anchor points for locating the neck place, and using the neck plane to automatically segment the aneurysm neck, the anchor points include a first control point” indicating the plane segment a the region passing through the first control point [the first input point] with the vector as discussed previously in Page 6, steps S431 and S432).
Regarding claim 7, Gu teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the method further comprises: obtaining an aneurysm point (Page 5, at step S110, discloses “obtaining the first aneurysm dome, which is a point on the aneurysm”), and wherein the generating the aneurysm region (Page 4, at Step S300, which discloses “traversing the sequence points of the centerline of the blood vessel, connecting each sequence point to the position of the aneurysm…inner surface of the aneurysm” indicating an aneurysm region) comprises:
obtaining a first region and a second region separated by the separating plane (Page 5, 1st par., discloses “an aneurysm neck plane can be obtained by combining the first control point and the second control point, and a line parallel to the aneurysm neck plane for automatic segmentation of the aneurysm neck” hence, the region segmented of the neck, any one of which is analogous to the first region and the other to be analogous to the second region as claimed); and
determining a region corresponding to the aneurysm point among the first region (Page 5, 1st par., discloses “an aneurysm neck plane can be obtained by combining the first control point and the second control point, and a line parallel to the aneurysm neck plane for automatic segmentation of the aneurysm neck” and Page 5, 2nd par., discloses “the sub-steps and the extended steps of each step of the method…obtaining the position of the dome of the aneurysm” indicating the region of the segmented regions include a region including the dome of the aneurysm being the aneurysm point ) and the second region as the aneurysm region (the region where the second control point can be understood as the second region, also being the region segmented by the neck plane, as the aneurysm region, as discussed previously).
Regarding claim 10, Gu explicitly the method of claim 1, wherein the obtaining the at least one input point (Page 4, at Step S200, discloses “obtaining anchor points for locating the neck plane” which has the anchor points being analogous to the recited input point) comprises:
obtaining a first input point, a second input point, and a third input point from a user (Page 6, at step S431, discloses “obtaining a first vector whose intermediate point points to the first control point, a second vector whose intermediate point points to the second control point, and adding the first vector and the second vector to obtain a third vector”, at step, S433, discloses “traversing the surface of the aneurysm to find the point closest to the auxiliary point as the third control point”, indicating first input, second input and third input point, since the initial information being obtained manually indicating these points are obtained based on information input from a user being control by the user, since it’s manually selected according to step S110 of Page 5), and wherein the method further comprises:
generating an intersection line where the separating plane contacts the vessel mesh (Page 5, 1st par., discloses “the connecting line intersects at the intersection point of the irregular curved surface, that is the tangent point…the two tangent points are respectively, used as the first control point and the second control point. An aneurysm neck plane can be obtained by combining the first control point, the second control point, and a line parallel to the aneurysm neck plane” indicating that the connecting line [intersection line since this line intersects at the intersection point] is where the neck plane contacts with the blood vessel);
maintaining the separating plane if the first input point, the second input point, and the third input point are located on the same intersection line; and requesting re-entry of the at least one input point if the first input point, the second input point, and the third input point are not located on the same intersection line (there are two conditions sharing the opposite cases of the if-statements, hence only one condition is met at one same instant of time of the claim’s processing, hence, since the contingence language is applied using two opposite if-statements, only one of the if statement’s limitation is the instant scope of the claim, the examiner selects “maintaining the separating plane if the first input point, the second input point, and the third input point are located on the same intersection line” to be the instant scope of the claim, which is taught in Gu’s Page 6, 2nd par., which discloses “the iterative calculation process…then use the same method again to obtain the first centerline are of influence. Iteratively calculate in this way until the distance between the two iterations of the tumor top is less than the expected value, such as 0.1 mm, stop the iteration” therefore, it can be understood to stop the iteration when the two iterations of the tumor top [obtained from the first control point, the second control point, and the third control point, the neck plane and the intersection point, as discussed previously] are intersecting or being close enough that the distance between them is so small of 0.1 mm which can be understood as intersecting, therefore, keep the result and stop the iteration or maintain the plane as claimed).
Regarding claim 17, Gu teaches an electronic device comprising: a processor; and a memory connected to the processor, wherein the memory is configured to store a program, wherein the processor is configured to execute the program, and wherein when the program is executed by the processor, the steps of the method of claim 1 are implemented (Page 9, 5th to the last paragraph, discloses the invention to be executed by a computer equipped with a processor to execute instructions stored in a memory to carry out the steps of the invention).
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.
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 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hui Gu et. al. (Foreign Patent Document “CN 116503436 A” hereinafter as “Gu”) in view of Jed Parsons et. al. (“US 9,025,007 B1” hereinafter as “Parsons”).
Regarding claim 2, Gu teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the obtaining the at least one input point comprises (Page 4, at Step S200, discloses “obtaining anchor points for locating the neck plane” which has the anchor points being analogous to the recited input point):
receiving a first input point and a second input point from a user (Page 4, at Step S200, discloses “obtaining anchor points for locating the neck plane” which has the anchor points being analogous to the recited input point; any of the anchor points is analogous to the first input point and any of the others is analogous to the second input point, moreover, in Step S200, of Page 4, the anchor points are control points, and the control points are illustrated in Figure 1, to be input from a user, being control by the user, since it’s manually selected according to step S110 of Page 5), and wherein the generating the separating plane (Page 4, at Step S200, discloses “obtaining anchor points for locating the neck plane” which has the anchor points being analogous to the recited input point and the neck plane to be analogous to a separating plane as claimed, since in Step 200, which discloses “using the neck plane to automatically segment the aneurysm neck”) comprises:
obtaining a camera viewpoint corresponding (Page 1, “Background technique” section, discloses “the voice of viewing angle for imaging and the choice of measurement location varied between different evaluators” indicating a camera view point, since imaging indicating a use of a camera).
However, Gu does not explicitly teach obtaining a camera viewpoint corresponding to the first input point or the second input point; and generating the separating plane based on the camera viewpoint, the first input point, and the second input point; generating the separating plane based on the camera viewpoint, the first input point, and the second input point.
In the same field of configuring camera view point for projecting of environment of interest (Abstract, Parsons), Parsons explicitly teaches obtaining a camera viewpoint corresponding to the first input point or the second input point (column 2, lines 31-42, discloses “the graphical user interface includes at least one manipulator in the virtual set movable by a user to generate a first input specifying an aspect of the virtual set….generate a second input specifying an aspect of a projection environment”, the aspect here being analogous to the camera field of view, and the first and second inputs being analogous to the first input point and the second input point); and
generating the separating plane based on the camera viewpoint, the first input point, and the second input point (Column 2, lines 45-52, discloses “the graphical user interface can further include at least one plane that is automatically moved based on the first and second inputs”, Column 11, lines 4-17, discloses “a plane can be associated with an object or character in a scene. For example, the convergence distance plane can be designated to be positioned relative to a particular object or character” therefore, the plane here is analogous to the plane generated in Gu being associated with the object of interest during processing).
Thus, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Gu’s method of generating a separating plane based on first and second user input points and a camera field of view;
Wherein Gu’s method can be modified to be based on obtaining a camera viewpoint corresponding to the first input point or the second input point; and generating the separating plane based on the camera viewpoint, the first input point, and the second input point; generating the separating plane based on the camera viewpoint, the first input point, and the second input point as taught by Parsons as discussed in the mapping above.
Such a modification is the result of combing prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. The motivation for the proposed modification would have been to configure camera in such method to specify aspect of camera view for the processing of the object of interest more compatibly for the projection environment (Abstract, Parsons).
Claims 8-9 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hui Gu et. al. (Foreign Patent Document “CN 116503436 A” hereinafter as “Gu”) in view of Adel M. Malek et. al. (“US 8,781,194 B2” hereinafter as “Malek”).
Regarding claim 8, Gu teaches the method of claim 7, wherein the determining the region corresponding to the aneurysm point among the first region (Page 5, 1st par., discloses “an aneurysm neck plane can be obtained by combining the first control point and the second control point, and a line parallel to the aneurysm neck plane for automatic segmentation of the aneurysm neck” hence, the region segmented of the neck, any one of which is analogous to the first region and the other to be analogous to the second region as claimed) and the second region as the aneurysm region (Page 5, 1st par., discloses “an aneurysm neck plane can be obtained by combining the first control point and the second control point, and a line parallel to the aneurysm neck plane for automatic segmentation of the aneurysm neck” and Page 5, 2nd par., discloses “the sub-steps and the extended steps of each step of the method…obtaining the position of the dome of the aneurysm” indicating the region of the segmented regions include a region including the dome of the aneurysm being the aneurysm point; the region where the second control point can be understood as the second region, also being the region segmented by the neck plane, as the aneurysm region, as discussed previously) comprises: obtaining vector of the separating plane (Page 6, at steps S431 and S432, discloses “calculate the line vector between the intermediate point and the first control point” here, the first control point is analogous to the aneurysm entry point, as discussed above, and the intermediate point representing a middle information point or center point corresponding to the aneurysm hence, is analogous to the recited aneurysm center point, an intermediate point indicating vector would be understood as a normal vector of the neck plane [the separate plane]); generating a first vector directed from a point on the separating plane toward the aneurysm point (Page 8, from Step 510 to Step S540, discloses “connecting the first control point and the second control point to obtain a fourth vector” and 5th to the last paragraph of Page 8, discloses “a line vector connecting the first control point and the second control point is calculated” therefore, the vector here is analogous to the recited vector which is connecting with the first and the second control points, which are previously recited to connect with the dome of the aneurysm being the aneurysm point, and the first and the second control points are part of the neck plane, as discussed previously, hence, it also directs to the separating plane as well, indicating a vector point); and determining the aneurysm region based on dot product of the vector and the first vector (5th to the last paragraph of Page 8, discloses “a line vector connecting the first control point and the second control point is calculated…calculate the crossproduct of the fourth vector and the fifth vector to obtain the sixth vector” indicating a dot product [crossproduct] is obtained of the vector to the first vector, which is used to obtain the aneurysm region as discussed previously).
However, Gu does not explicitly teach obtaining a normal vector of the separating plane.
In the same field of Aneurysm Detection (Title, Malek), Malek explicitly teaches obtaining a normal vector of the separating plane (Column 8, lines 10-24, discloses “when np is the surface normal at point p…of a vector…a.b denotes a dot product and bXc denotes a cross product” indicating the aneurysm region can be detected using a normal vector and take a dot product of the normal vector and the vector of the separating plane, Column 8, lines 40-50, discloses “cross-sections of the vessel…intersecting a cutting plane”).
Thus, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Gu’s method of generating a separating plane based on first and second user input points and a camera field of view comprises: obtaining vector of the separating plane; generating a first vector directed from a point on the separating plane toward the aneurysm point; and determining the aneurysm region based on dot product of the normal vector and the first vector;
Wherein Gu’s method can be modified to be based on obtaining a normal vector of the separating plane; generating a first vector directed from a point on the separating plane toward the aneurysm point; and determining the aneurysm region based on dot product of the normal vector and the first vector as taught by Malek as discussed in the mapping above.
Such a modification is the result of combing prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. The motivation for the proposed modification would have been to follow such method to effectively obtain accurate detection of aneurysm region (Abstract, Malek).
Regarding claim 9, Gu in view of Malek teaches the method of claim 8, wherein Gu explicitly teaches wherein the determining the aneurysm region based on dot product of the normal vector and the first vector comprises (5th to the last paragraph of Page 8, discloses “a line vector connecting the first control point and the second control point is calculated…calculate the crossproduct of the fourth vector and the fifth vector to obtain the sixth vector” indicating a dot product [crossproduct] is obtained of the vector to the first vector, which is used to obtain the aneurysm region as discussed previously).
However, Gu does not explicitly teach determining a direction in which a normal vector of the separating plane is directed as the aneurysm region if the dot product is equal to or greater than 0; and inverting the separating plane and determining the direction in which a normal vector of the inverted separating plane is directed as the aneurysm region if the dot product is less than 0.
In the same field of Aneurysm Detection (Title, Malek), Malek discloses determining a direction in which a normal vector of the separating plane is directed as the aneurysm region if the dot product is equal to or greater than 0; and inverting the separating plane and determining the direction in which a normal vector of the inverted separating plane is directed as the aneurysm region if the dot product is less than 0 (there are two conditions sharing the opposite cases of the if-statements, hence only one condition is met at one same instant of time of the claim’s processing, hence, since the contingence language is applied using two opposite if-statements, only one of the if statement’s limitation is the instant scope of the claim, the examiner selects “inverting the separating plane and determining the direction in which a normal vector of the inverted separating plane is directed as the aneurysm region if the dot product is less than 0” to be the instant scope of the claim, which is taught in Malek’s Column 8, lines 10-24, discloses “when np is the surface normal at point p…of a vector…a.b denotes a dot product and bXc denotes a cross product…the absolute value of the triple scalar product is the volume of the parallelepiped defined by vectors a, b and c. The quantity w(p,p’) is a pseudoscalar, meaning that it behaves like a scalar but changes sign under inversion” indicating that when the dot product is less than 0 [changes signs of the absolute value], then the quantity would be under inversion, or the direction would be inverted of the vectors a, b and c being the vectors mentioned in the claim analogously).
Thus, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Gu’s method of generating a separating plane based on first and second user input points and a camera field of view comprises: obtaining vector of the separating plane; generating a first vector directed from a point on the separating plane toward the aneurysm point; and determining the aneurysm region based on dot product of the normal vector and the first vector;
Wherein Gu’s method can be modified to be based on obtaining a normal vector of the separating plane; generating a first vector directed from a point on the separating plane toward the aneurysm point; and determining the aneurysm region based on dot product of the normal vector and the first vector and inverting the separating plane and determining the direction in which a normal vector of the inverted separating plane is directed as the aneurysm region if the dot product is less than 0 as taught by Malek as discussed in the mapping above.
Such a modification is the result of combing prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. The motivation for the proposed modification would have been to follow such method to effectively obtain accurate detection of aneurysm region (Abstract, Malek).
Claims 11-12 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hui Gu et. al. (Foreign Patent Document “CN 116503436 A” hereinafter as “Gu”) in view of Pascal Cathier et. al. (“US 2005/0265601 A1” hereinafter as “Cathier”).
Regarding claim 11, Gu teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the generating the aneurysm region comprises (Page 4, at Step S300, which discloses “traversing the sequence points of the centerline of the blood vessel, connecting each sequence point to the position of the aneurysm…inner surface of the aneurysm” indicating an aneurysm region) comprises: and generating the aneurysm region using a second candidate plane (Page 4, at Step S300, which discloses “traversing the sequence points of the centerline of the blood vessel, connecting each sequence point to the position of the aneurysm…inner surface of the aneurysm” indicating an aneurysm region).
However, Gu does not explicitly teach generating first candidate planes based on the separating plane; and generating the aneurysm region using a second candidate plane among the first candidate planes.
In the same field of aneurysm detection using cutting planes (Title and Par. [0005] discloses “detecting aneurysms, which appear as spherical protruding structures”, Cathier), Cathier teaches generating first candidate planes based on the separating plane (Par. [0010] discloses “a system for detecting a desired object at a candidate pixel from an image…selecting a representative point in the desired object; a determination means for determining first representative cross-sections of the desired object by passing first lower dimension planes through the representative point…in each of the at least one second lower dimension plane” and Par. [0034] discloses “a method for cutting planes, which may be used to detect polyps in CT scans of the colon” indicating generating candidate planes [cutting planes based on a candidate pixel] based on an already given separating plane [lower dimension plane]); and generating the aneurysm region using a second candidate plane among the first candidate planes (Par. [0010] discloses “a system for detecting a desired object at a candidate pixel from an image…selecting a representative point in the desired object; a determination means for determining first representative cross-sections of the desired object by passing first lower dimension planes through the representative point…in each of the at least one second lower dimension plane….determining a match value for using the match value to determine if the desired object is detected at the candidate pixel” indicating detecting the aneurysm region using the plane found from the candidate planes).
Thus, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Gu’s method of generating a separating plane based on first and second user input points and a camera field of view comprises: obtaining vector of the separating plane; generating a first vector directed from a point on the separating plane toward the aneurysm point; and determining the aneurysm region based on dot product of the normal vector and the first vector; generating the aneurysm region using a second candidate plane;
Wherein Gu’s method can be modified to be based on generating first candidate planes based on the separating plane; and generating the aneurysm region using a second candidate plane among the first candidate planes as taught by Cathier as discussed in the mapping above.
Such a modification is the result of combing prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. The motivation for the proposed modification would have been to use such method to create candidate cutting planes to detect a desired object more accurately (Abstract, Cathier).
Regarding claim 12, Gu in view of Cathier teaches the method of claim 11, wherein Gu explicitly teaches wherein the generating the first candidate planes comprises: generating the first candidate planes by parallel translation of the separating plane (Page 3, 3rd to the last paragraph, discloses “the connecting line between the third control point and the fourth control point is parallel to the aneurysm neck plane” indicating the connecting line is part of the plane that is parallel to the neck plan by connecting the third and fourth points [analogous to the parallel translation process as claimed, since this processing results in a plane that is parallel to the neck plane being the separation plane, as previously discussed]) in a direction of a vector of the separating plane by a predetermined distance range (Page 2, 1st 3 paragraphs, discloses “connecting line between the third control point and the fourth control point is parallel to the neck plane…connecting the position of the tumor top to the first control point, extending and intersecting with the center line of the blood vessel to obtain a first end point”; moreover, Page 3, 9th paragraph, discloses “a line connecting the dome of the aneurysm is tangent to the neck of the aneurysm, and the affected area of the first centerline is obtained” and the connecting is done based on the obtained vectors, tangency indicating normal direction, therefore, is analogous to the claimed limitation; moreover, the final point is obtained based on the closest distance according to Page 3, 10th par., therefore, indicating a distance threshold, which discloses “two directions along the centerline of the blood vessel from the first closest point until the point on the centerline of the blood vessel”).
Claims 13-16 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hui Gu et. al. (Foreign Patent Document “CN 116503436 A” hereinafter as “Gu”) in view of Pascal Cathier et. al. (“US 2005/0265601 A1” hereinafter as “Cathier”) and Marina Piccinelli et. al. (“Automatic Neck Plane Detection and 3D Geometric Characterization of Aneurysmal Sacs, April 2012, Annals of Biomedical Engineering, Vol. 40, PP. 2188-2211” hereinafter as “Piccinelli”).
Regarding claim 13, Gu in view of Cathier teaches the method of claim 11, wherein Gu explicitly teaches the obtaining the at least one input point comprises (Page 4, at Step S200, discloses “obtaining anchor points for locating the neck plane” which has the anchor points being analogous to the recited input point): receiving a first input point and a second input point from a user (Page 4, at Step S200, discloses “obtaining anchor points for locating the neck plane” which has the anchor points being analogous to the recited input point; any of the anchor points is analogous to the first input point and any of the others is analogous to the second input point, moreover, in Step S200, of Page 4, the anchor points are control points, and the control points are illustrated in Figure 1, to be input from a user, being control by the user, since it’s manually selected according to step S110 of Page 5), and wherein the generating the first candidate planes comprises (Page 4, at Step S200, discloses “obtaining anchor points for locating the neck plane” which has the anchor points being analogous to the recited input point and the neck plane to be analogous to a separating plane as claimed, since in Step 200, which discloses “using the neck plane to automatically segment the aneurysm neck”): determining a straight line connecting the first input point and the second input point (Page 3, 3rd par., discloses “connecting the first control point and the second control point”).
However, Gu does not explicitly disclose determining a straight line connecting the first input point and the second input point as a rotation axis; and generating the first candidate planes by rotating the separating plane by a predetermined angle range using the rotation axis.
In the same field of Aneurysmal detection (Title, Piccinelli), Piccinelli discloses determining a straight line connecting the first input point and the second input point as a rotation axis (Page 2192, “Slicing of Aneurysm Sac Surface, Neck Cross Section…Isolation” section, discloses “the aneurysmal surface was then sliced with a plane at each reference line point…while the azimuth angle defines the amount of rotation around the reference line” indicating the reference line points here being analogous to the first and second input points, and the reference line to be the connecting line being the rotation axis, since it’s used for rotation); and generating the first candidate planes by rotating the separating plane by a predetermined angle range using the rotation axis (Page 2192, “Slicing of Aneurysm Sac Surface, Neck Cross Section…Isolation” section, discloses “for each slice of the sac surface, the algorithm tested whether an open or closed profile was generated” therefore, each slice indicating candidate planes, a the plurality of candidates planes being generated based on the rotation of the azimuth angle [predetermined angle range]).
Thus, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Gu’s method of generating a separating plane based on first and second user input points and a camera field of view;
Wherein Gu’s method can be modified to be based on determining a straight line connecting the first input point and the second input point as a rotation axis; and generating the first candidate planes by rotating the separating plane by a predetermined angle range using the rotation axis as taught by Piccinelli as discussed in the mapping above.
Such a modification is the result of combing prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. The motivation for the proposed modification would have been to perform such method using the capturing of the 3D nature structure through planes to perform aneurysm detection more accurately and with less risk of false detection (Abstract, Piccinelli).
Regarding claim 14, Gu in view of Cathier and Piccinelli teaches the method of claim 13, wherein Gu explicitly teaches the generating the aneurysm region using the second candidate plane among the first candidate planes comprises (Page 4, at Step S300, which discloses “traversing the sequence points of the centerline of the blood vessel, connecting each sequence point to the position of the aneurysm…inner surface of the aneurysm” indicating an aneurysm region): calculating a base length of an intersection line of the separating plane (Page 2 discloses “connecting the position of the tumor top to the second control point, extending and intersecting the centerline of the blood vessel…the selected candidate point with the smallest third length” indicating a base length of an intersection line with the blood vessel plane of the neck plane being the separating plane as discussed previously); determining a boundary length based on the base length (Page 2 discloses “the selected candidate point with the smallest third length is used as the corrected third control point…obtaining a first set of equidistant points on the surface of the aneurysm” indicating a boundary length [on the surface] based on the calculated distances); and determining, as the second candidate plane, a plane among the first candidate planes whose intersection line with the vessel mesh has a length smaller than the boundary length (Page 7, last paragraph, discloses “step S462, in the first set of equidistance points, delete the points whose distance from the optimized third control point is smaller than the expected threshold, and obtain the second set of equidistant points” and Page 8, 2nd paragraph, discloses “the points on the surface of the blood vessel model are traversed to obtain a set of points. The length of the shortest path between all points in the set and the first control point is equal to the length of the shortest geodesic path between the point and the second control point” indicating that the plane among the candidate planes [path between all the points of the connecting points forming the planes] with the smallest desired distance according to the condition discussed to be smaller than the boundary length).
Regarding claim 15, Gu in view of Cathier and Piccinelli teaches the method of claim 14, wherein Gu explicitly teaches the generating the aneurysm region using the second candidate plane among the first candidate planes further comprises (Page 4, at Step S300, which discloses “traversing the sequence points of the centerline of the blood vessel, connecting each sequence point to the position of the aneurysm…inner surface of the aneurysm” indicating an aneurysm region): obtaining a plurality of second candidate planes (Page 8, 2nd paragraph, discloses “the points on the surface of the blood vessel model are traversed to obtain a set of points. The length of the shortest path between all points in the set and the first control point is equal to the length of the shortest geodesic path between the point and the second control point” indicating that the plane among the candidate planes [path between all the points of the connecting points forming the planes]); calculating a score for each of the plurality of second candidate planes (Page 8, 2nd paragraph, discloses “the points on the surface of the blood vessel model are traversed to obtain a set of points. The length of the shortest path between all points in the set and the first control point is equal to the length of the shortest geodesic path between the point and the second control point” indicating that the plane among the candidate planes [path between all the points of the connecting points forming the planes] with the smallest desired distance; the distances calculated here are analogous to the scores as claimed); and selecting one of the plurality of second candidate planes based on the score (Page 7, last paragraph, discloses “step S462, in the first set of equidistance points, delete the points whose distance from the optimized third control point is smaller than the expected threshold, and obtain the second set of equidistant points” and Page 8, 2nd paragraph, discloses “the points on the surface of the blood vessel model are traversed to obtain a set of points. The length of the shortest path between all points in the set and the first control point is equal to the length of the shortest geodesic path between the point and the second control point” indicating that the plane among the candidate planes [path between all the points of the connecting points forming the planes] with the smallest desired distance according to the condition discussed to be smaller than the boundary length, the distances here can be understood to be the scores, and the score with the smallest distance is chosen and the final point for selecting of the plane).
Regarding claim 16, Gu in view of Cathier and Piccinelli teaches the method of claim 15, wherein Gu explicitly teaches the calculating the score comprises (Page 8, 2nd paragraph, discloses “the points on the surface of the blood vessel model are traversed to obtain a set of points. The length of the shortest path between all points in the set and the first control point is equal to the length of the shortest geodesic path between the point and the second control point” indicating that the plane among the candidate planes [path between all the points of the connecting points forming the planes] with the smallest desired distance; the distances calculated here are analogous to the scores as claimed): calculating the score based on at least one of a first volume of the aneurysm region obtained by one of the second candidate planes, a second volume of a parent artery region obtained by the one of the second candidate planes, and a perimeter of the intersection line between the one of the second candidate planes and the vessel mesh (“at least one of….and…” indicating a selection, only one selection is the instant scope of the claim, the examiner selects “a perimeter of the intersection line between the one of the second candidate planes and the vessel mesh” which is taught in Gu’s Page 8, 2nd paragraph, discloses “the points on the surface of the blood vessel model are traversed to obtain a set of points. The length of the shortest path between all points in the set and the first control point is equal to the length of the shortest geodesic path between the point and the second control point” the connecting points here, as discussed previously, forming the plurality of planes, being analogous to the candidate planes, and the blood vessel model being mention being analogous to the recited vessel mesh, the geodesic path between all points indicating a perimeter of the intersection line as claimed).
Pertinent Prior Art(s)
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Smiricinschi, Val et. al., US 2021/0015373 A1, discloses aystems and methods for classifying and measuring a cerebral aneurysm of a parent vessel. The method includes identifying a potential aneurysm and determining whether the potential aneurysm is a saccular aneurysm type or a fusiform aneurysm type. If the potential aneurysm is the saccular aneurysm type then determining a neck-plane and a neck width of the neck-plane. If the potential aneurysm is the fusiform aneurysm type then determining a distal plane and a proximal plane.
Maeda, Tatsuo, US 10849583 B2, discloses a medical image diagnostic apparatus according to an embodiment includes processing circuitry. The processing circuitry extracts a reference line of a region of interest included in a medical image collected from a subject. The processing circuitry sets feature points in the region of interest based on the reference line and a contour of the region of interest. The processing circuitry presents pieces of identification information for identifying the positions of the set feature points. The processing circuitry receives a contactless input for selecting a specific piece of identification information from the pieces of identification information presented in the medical image. Based on the specific piece of identification information for which the contactless input is received, the processing circuitry acquires the position of the feature point having the corresponding piece of identification information in the medical image.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHUONG HAU CAI whose telephone number is (571)272-9424. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 am - 5:00pm.
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, Chineyere Wills-Burns can be reached at (571) 272-9752. 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.
/PHUONG HAU CAI/Examiner, Art Unit 2673
/CHINEYERE WILLS-BURNS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2673
Prosecution Insights