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 .
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.
Claim Objections
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: “a set of local elements, named patches, and” in lines 2-3 should be amended to --a set of local elements and named patches, and--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities: “a gradient of the potential along the electrode” in the last two lines of the claim should be amended to --a gradient of a potential along the electrode--. 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 7 and 13-14 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.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the considered patch r" in line 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the electric current" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 14, the claim recites the variable “g+” and “g-” in the claim which renders the claim indefinite because of ordinary skill in the art would not be apprised of what these variables represent in the equation since the claim does not define these variables.
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 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The claim(s) recite(s) “implement registration of current image data and pre-procedural image data, and to return cone beam computed tomography augmented image data” and “receive cone beam computed tomography augmented image data and electromagnetic stimulation parameters, and to return electromagnetic field simulation data”. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because they only amount to the abstract ideas of mathematical concepts and mental processes.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because despite the recitations of obtaining image data, outputting augmented image data, a memory, a tool, a simulator, a percutaneous ablation procedure, further specifics on how registration is performed, and how simulation is performed, these recitations only amount to extra-solution activity as defined in MPEP 2106.05(g), amount to mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer and use of the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea as defined in MPEP 2106.05(f), and/or amount to further recitations of the mathematical concepts and mental processes without integration into a practical application.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 3-5 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown (US 2019/0262076) in view of Krimsky (US 2018/0235713).
Regarding claim 1, Brown discloses a medical assistance device (see Figs. 1A-1B) comprising: a memory (see [0072]) arranged to receive pre-procedural image data of one or more area(s) of interests (see step 1700; [0142], Fig. 17); a tool (see processing system 90, Fig. 1B), arranged to receive current image data of one or more area(s) of interest (see step 1712; [0145], Fig. 17) including at least one electromagnetic stimulation needle obtained by computed tomography during a percutaneous ablation procedure based on electromagnetic fields (see needle [0144]-[0145], microwave or RF probes, or electroporation probes; [0097] and [0149]), to implement registration of current image data and pre-procedural image data (see placement of the images in combination, which necessitates registration to combine the images together to present the virtual needles/other features present in the image together with the segmented needles/other features in a correct position relative to one another, [0145]), and to return computed tomography augmented image data (see step 1714; [0145], Fig. 17) and a simulator arranged to receive computed tomography augmented image data (from step 1714, Fig. 17) and electromagnetic stimulation parameters (see operating parameters in step 1716, [0146], see also operating power, operating time, or the like, [0139]), and to return electromagnetic field simulation data (see step 1720, generation of a treatment volume based on the updated image data and the operating parameters, Fig. 17). However, Brown fails to disclose the computed tomography image data as cone beam computed tomography image data.
Krimsky teaches a medical assistance device and method (see Figs. 1-4) including using cone beam computed tomography image data (see [0048]) to compare/register original and updated images in order to determine real time positions of anatomical features (see [0051], [0058]) and a surgical tool relative to the anatomical features throughout a procedure (see Figs. 3A-3B). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the image data and augmented image data as disclosed by Brown to comprise cone beam computed tomography data and augmented cone beam computed tomography data in light of Krimsky, the motivation being to provide localized imaging for improved detail and clarity of specific anatomical structures (see Krimsky [0060]).
Regarding claims 3-5 and 15, Brown in view of Krimsky further teaches the limitations of the claims under the same citations and rationale as set forth above in the rejection of claim 1.
Claims 2 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown in view of Krimsky and in further view of Neal, II et al. (US 2019/0256839).
Regarding claim 2, Brown in view of Krimsky teaches the limitations of claim 1 and further teaches a screen arranged so as to receive electromagnetic field simulation data (see one or more displays, Brown [0056]), however Brown in view of Krimsky fails to further teach said simulation data comprising distribution data of the electromagnetic field, and to display a distribution of the electromagnetic field in one or more area(s) of interest.
Neal, II teaches a method of processing medical images into 3D reconstructions and also constructing dynamic electrical effects, physical constraints, tissue heterogeneities, dynamic effects of electropermeabilization, dynamic thermal effects, or effects resulting from multiple treatments that include providing distribution data of the electromagnetic fields (see [0014], [0022]-[0024], [0178], Figs. 2A-I and Figs. 21A-H) and wherein the distribution of the electrical fields is based on an intensity of electrical current flowing through the needles and effective conductive of the heterogenous tissue environment (see [0012], [0014], and [0086]-[0087]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the simulation data as taught by Brown in view of Krimsky to further include distribution data of the electromagnetic field, and to display a distribution of the electromagnetic field in one or more area(s) of interest in light of Neal, II, the motivation being to provide the additional advantage of accounting for heterogenous environments in real time for improved treatment planning (see Neal, II [0014]).
Regarding claim 13, Brown in view of Krimsky and Neal, II further teaches the limitations of this claim under the same citations and rationale relied upon in the rejection of claim 2 above.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown in view of Krimsky and in further view of Lavi et al. (US 2022/0254131).
Regarding claim 6, Brown in view of Krimsky teaches the limitations of claim 3, however fails to further teach wherein the registration comprises an initial operation of implementing a nearest neighbor algorithm applied to at least one pair formed of a pre-procedural image and a current image.
Lavi teaches a method correlating centerlines when compiling images for use in a 3D reconstruction including use of a nearest neighbor algorithm to determine correspondences in the images (see [0120]-[0122]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the registration as taught by Brown in view of Krimsky to further include an initial operation of implementing a nearest neighbor algorithm applied to at least one pair formed of a pre-procedural image and a current image in light of Lavi, the motivation being to provide the additional advantage of determination of homologies in the images for improved alignment (see Lavi [0122]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Muse et al. ("3D deformable image matching using multiscale minimization of global energy functions", IEEE, 1999) discloses a hierarchical framework to perform deformable matching of three dimensional (3D) images wherein a global energy function, depending on the reference image and the transformed one, is minimized via a coarse-to-fine algorithm over this multiscale decomposition.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEAN W COLLINS whose telephone number is (408)918-7607. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 AM-5:00 PM ET.
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, Joanne Rodden can be reached at 303-297-4276. 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.
/SEAN W COLLINS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3794
Prosecution Insights