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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed July 13, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues that Chukka doe not teach “registering the first image to the second image based upon the weak annotations on the first image and the second image to produce parameters” (Remarks of July 13, 2026, page 9). The examiner respectfully disagrees. The applicant argues that alignment does not make use of the annotations. Applicant’s sequence of operation states transferring the weak annotation to the second image and then a registration process. Applicant’s US publication (US 2025/0166795) states that a transfer can be done through known registration methods (¶ 84). The examiner argues this is consistent with Chukka’s registration method and that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that in medical image analysis and based on the teaching in Chukka that during the coarse registration a transfer of the annotations was made before alignment of the images (¶ 74 and 76). The examiner further argues that Chukka’s fine registration process is consistent with the aligning the received first image and second image and the retransferring process. The examiner argues that in simple terms that is applicant’s invention based a person who is one of ordinary skill understanding of the broad nature of the claims; that the present invention performs an initial registration process and further refine that registration based on the annotations.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 – 6, 8, 12 – 17, 19, and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chukka et al (US 2016/0019695, hereafter Chukka).
As per claim 1, Chukka discloses a method for analyzing two medical images using a processing device, comprising:
receiving a first image along with weak annotation of the first image; receiving a second image (¶ 1);
transferring the weak annotations to the second image (¶ 1);
registering the first image to the second image based upon the weak annotations on the first image and the second image to produce registration parameters (¶ 10, 63);
aligning the received first image and received second image using the registration parameters (¶ 6); and
retransferring the weak annotation to the second aligned image. (¶ 61 - 63)
As per claim 2, Chukka discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising analyzing the second and/or first image (¶ 1, 6, and 69).
As per claim 3, Chukka discloses the method of claim 2, wherein analyzing the second and/or first image includes subtracting the first aligned image and the second aligned image and further comprising:
displaying the subtracted images where positive and negative results are displayed differently (¶ 51 - 60).
As per claim 4, Chukka discloses the method of claim 2, wherein analyzing the second and/or first image includes comparing a region associated with a weak annotation in the first aligned image and the second aligned image (¶ 57, 65, and 72).
As per claim 5, Chukka discloses the method of claim 2, wherein analyzing the second and/or first image includes segmenting a region associated with a weak annotation in the second altered image (¶ 51 and 68).
As per claim 6, Chukka discloses the method of claim 5, wherein analyzing the second and/or first image includes further segmenting a region associated with the weak association in the first altered image, and
comparing the segmented regions associated with the weak annotations associated with the first image with those in the second image (¶ 51, 57, and 68).
As per claim 8, Chukka discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising altering the regions associated with the weak annotations in the first image and the second image to produce an altered first image and an altered second image, wherein registering the first image to the second image is further based upon first altered image and the second altered image (¶ 51, 68, and 69).
Regarding claim 12, arguments analogous to those presented for claim 1 are applicable for claim 12.
Regarding claim 13, arguments analogous to those presented for claim 2 are applicable for claim 13.
Regarding claim 14, arguments analogous to those presented for claim 3 are applicable for claim 14.
Regarding claim 15, arguments analogous to those presented for claim 4 are applicable for claim 15.
Regarding claim 16, arguments analogous to those presented for claim 5 are applicable for claim 16.
Regarding claim 17, arguments analogous to those presented for claim 6 are applicable for claim 17.
Regarding claim 19, arguments analogous to those presented for claim 8 are applicable for claim 19.
Regarding claim 23, arguments analogous to those presented for claim 1 are applicable for claim 23.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 7 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chukka in view of Heitz et al (US 2023/0410291, hereafter Heitz).
As per claim 7, Chukka the method of claim 2.
However, Chukka does not explicitly teach wherein analyzing the second and/or first image includes segmenting a region associated with a weak annotation in the second altered image in two dimensions and propagating the segmentation to images of adjacent slices resulting in a three dimensional segmentation.
In the same field of endeavor, Heitz teaches wherein analyzing the second and/or first image includes segmenting a region associated with a weak annotation in the second altered image in two dimensions and propagating the segmentation to images of adjacent slices resulting in a three dimensional segmentation (¶ 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention as effectively filed to modify the invention Chukka in view of Crabb. The advantage is enhancing the quality of a medical image.
Regarding claim 18, arguments analogous to those presented for claim 7 are applicable for claim 18.
Claim(s) 9 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chukka in view of Crabb et al (US 2022/0409161, hereafter Crabb).
As per claim 9, Chukka discloses the method of claim 8.
However, Chukka does not explicitly teach wherein altering the regions associated with the weak annotations in the first image and the second image includes: removing the regions associated with the weak annotations from the first image and the second image, down- weighting the regions associated with the weak annotations from the first image and the second image; and/or applying a generative adversarial network (GAN) to the regions associated with the weak annotations from the first image and the second image.
In the same field of endeavor, Crabb teaches wherein altering the regions associated with the weak annotations in the first image and the second image includes: removing the regions associated with the weak annotations from the first image and the second image, down- weighting the regions associated with the weak annotations from the first image and the second image; and/or applying a generative adversarial network (GAN) to the regions associated with the weak annotations from the first image and the second image (¶ 43 - 45).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention as effectively filed to modify the invention Chukka in view of Crabb. The advantage is enhancing the quality of a medical image and remove motion artifacts.
Regarding claim 20, arguments analogous to those presented for claim 9 are applicable for claim 20.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHIKAODILI E ANYIKIRE whose telephone number is (571)270-1445. The examiner can normally be reached 8 am - 4:30 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, David Czekaj can be reached at 571-272-7327. 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.
/CHIKAODILI E ANYIKIRE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2487
Prosecution Insights