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 .
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.
Claims 1-2, 5-6, 10-14, 17-18, 22 and 24-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee et al (US PG Pub. No. 2011/0317810).
With regards to claim 1, Lee discloses receiving a time-ordered (“real time”) plurality of X-ray images of an object a subject, wherein the plurality of X-ray images is taken at a plurality of poses relative to the subject at ¶¶ [0025]-[0028] and ¶ [0034](“[A]s the pose of the c-arm changes, it should be computed from pose to pose at which each image is taken”)
Lee discloses at least one of the plurality of X-ray images depicts at least one object (e.g., “radioactive seeds”) of known shape and/or location at ¶ [0035](“N radioactive seeds are implanted, … Ni seed locations are identified in the ith image…”); see, also, ¶¶ [0008]-[0010]; ¶¶ [0026]-[0028]; ¶ [0030]
Lee discloses determining an initial estimate of a pose (“rotation and … translation… of the c-arm”) of at least one of the plurality of X-ray images at: ¶ [0026](“[T]he relative pose of a c-arm fluoroscopy image is estimated by registering the fluoroscopy image to a fiducial or marker image”); ¶ [0034](“[T]he pose parameters (three parameters for rotation and three parameters for translation) of the c-arm are computed at each image acquisition pose by using external tracking devices such as optical tracker, encoder, and fluoroscope tracking radiographic fiducial structure…”)
Lee discloses refining (correcting) the initial estimate of the pose (“rotation and … translation… of the c-arm”) based on at least one comparison of the at least one of the plurality of X-ray images with at least one projected image determined from the initial estimate of the pose (“rotation and … translation… of the c-arm”) and the object of known shape and/or location at: ¶¶ [0043]-[0046]; to wit: “[P]atients may move during image acquisitions. Even though image pose errors and the amount of patient movements are small, they could noticeably affect the overall matching accuracy due to the small size of the implants and their large numbers. Both motions can be mathematically modeled as a rotation and a translation, and can be corrected by minimizing projection errors (PE, see FIG. 3). Since correspondences between the reconstructed 3-D implants and the 2-D implant images are already known, the overall cost function can be defined as a function of projection errors as f(δx(R, T)) where δx(R, T) is the projection error between the measured implant coordinates 311, 312, 313 and the reprojected implant coordinates 331, 332, 333, of the reconstructed seed location 330, and R and T are the rotation and translation parameters, respectively. The erroneous R and T can be corrected by solving for the following minimization problem:
R
^
,
T
^
=
f
δ
x
R
,
T
R
.
T
.
a
r
g
m
i
n
With regards to claim 2, Lee discloses reconstructing a three-dimensional structure using the refined (corrected) at least the initial estimate of the pose (“rotation and … translation… of the c-arm”) and the plurality of X-ray images at: ¶¶ [0025]-[0026](“Some embodiments of the current invention are directed to 3-D reconstruction and localization of radioactive implants from a limited number of x-ray images… 3D reconstruction of the seeds is necessary and requires that the relative poses of the fluoroscopy images must be known prior to reconstruction.”)
With regards to claim 5, Lee discloses the projected image includes a projected two-dimensional image of the location of at least a portion of the at least one object and the at least one comparison comprises comparing the at least one projected two-dimensional image with at least one of the plurality of X-ray images at ¶¶ [0043]-[0046] and FIG. 3.
With regards to claim 6, Lee discloses the comparison comprises an alignment of data from the at least one projected two-dimensional image with the plurality of X-ray images at ¶¶ [0043]-[0046] and FIG. 3.
With regards to 10, Lee discloses receiving a sensed shape of the at least one object at ¶ [0027](“C-arm fluoroscopy, on the other hand, may be used for visual assessment of the implanted seeds...”)
With regards to claim 11, Lee discloses the at least one object of known location includes a first object of known location and a second object of known location and wherein the processor is further configured to determine a distortion parameter (“distortion parameter”) from the second object of known location at: ¶ [0034](“However, nonlinear geometric distortion in the image causes errors in the reconstruction by shifting the location of the 2-D projected implants… [W]e perform the distortion parameter computation”) and ¶¶ [0043]-[0046].
With regards to claim 12, Lee discloses the second object is movable relative to the first object at: ¶ [0034](“ However, nonlinear geometric distortion in the image causes errors in the reconstruction by shifting the location of the 2-D projected implants… [W]e perform the distortion parameter computation”) and ¶¶ [0043]-[0046].
With regards to claim 13, the steps performed by the method of this claim are anticipated by Lee for the same reasons as were provided in the discussion of claim 1, which recites an apparatus configured to perform these same steps.
With regards to claim 14, the steps performed by the method of this claim are anticipated by Lee for the same reasons as were provided in the discussion of claim 2, which recites an apparatus configured to perform these same steps.
With regards to claim 17, the steps performed by the method of this claim are anticipated by Lee for the same reasons as were provided in the discussion of claim 5, which recites an apparatus configured to perform these same steps.
With regards to claim 18, the steps performed by the method of this claim are anticipated by Lee for the same reasons as were provided in the discussion of claim 6, which recites an apparatus configured to perform these same steps.
With regards to claim 22, the steps performed by the method of this claim are anticipated by Lee for the same reasons as were provided in the discussion of claim 10, which recites an apparatus configured to perform these same steps.
With regards to claim 24, the steps performed by the method of this claim are anticipated by Lee for the same reasons as were provided in the discussion of claim 11, which recites an apparatus configured to perform these same steps.
With regards to claim 25, the steps performed by the method of this claim are anticipated by Lee for the same reasons as were provided in the discussion of claim 12, which recites an apparatus configured to perform these same steps.
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.
Claims 3-4 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al (US PG Pub. No. 2011/0317810) in view of Grzeda et al (Canadian Pub. No. CA 2 744 123 C).
With regards to claim 3, Lee discloses determining an initial estimate of a pose (“rotation and … translation… of the c-arm”) of at least one of the plurality of X-ray images at: ¶ [0026](“[T]he relative pose of a c-arm fluoroscopy image is estimated by registering the fluoroscopy image to a fiducial or marker image”); ¶ [0034](“[T]he pose parameters (three parameters for rotation and three parameters for translation) of the c-arm are computed at each image acquisition pose by using external tracking devices such as optical tracker, encoder, and fluoroscope tracking radiographic fiducial structure…”) Lee does not specify the particular external tracking devices recited in claim 3, however use of an accelerometer was known in the art:
Grzeda discloses determining an initial estimate of a c-arm pose based at least in part on data from an accelerometer at p.6, l.9 – p.7, l.12 (“Methods described herein include recovering the C-ann rotational pose (i.e., tilt angle) using an angle-sensing device, such as an accelerometer. For example, affixing an accelerometer to a C-arm allows the C-arm pose to be estimated at any position (i.e., angle) through its rotational range”).” At the time of filing of the present application, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use an accelerometer to determine an initial estimate of c-arm pose, as taught by Grzeda, as a substitute for the external tracking devices listed by Lee. This combination is a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results. The prior art contained a method, taught by Lee, which differed from the claimed method by the substitution of the external device used to determine C-arm pose. Using an accelerometer to determine C-arm pose, and its functions were known in the art as evidenced by the Grzeda reference. One of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted Grzeda into the method taught by Lee and the results would have been predictable; to wit, an initial estimate of the C-arm pose would be provided.
With regards to claim 4, Grzeda discloses determining the initial estimate of the at least one pose using a uniform distribution of the plurality of poses across a range of motion of an imaging system used to take the plurality of X-ray images at p.12, l.7-p.14, l.14, TABLES 1-2 and FIG. 6. The motivation for the combination is the same as previously presented.
With regards to claim 15, the steps performed by the method of this claim are obvious over the combination of Lee and Grzeda for the same reasons as were provided in the discussion of claim 3, which recites an apparatus configured to perform these same steps.
With regards to claim 16, the steps performed by the method of this claim are obvious over the combination of Lee and Grzeda for the same reasons as were provided in the discussion of claim 4, which recites an apparatus configured to perform these same steps.
Claims 7 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al (US PG Pub. No. 2011/0317810) in view of Kidd et al (US PG Pub. No. 2007/0288135).
With regards to claim 7, Lee discloses refining (correcting) the initial estimate of the pose (“rotation and … translation… of the c-arm”) based on at least one comparison of the at least one of the plurality of X-ray images with at least one projected image determined from the initial estimate of the pose (“rotation and … translation… of the c-arm”) and the object of known shape and/or location at: ¶¶ [0043]-[0046]. But, Lee does not disclose using bundle adjustment to refine the at least one initial estimate of the pose based at least in part on the object of known shape and/or location. However, this limitation was known in the art:
Kidd discloses using bundle adjustment to refine the at least one initial estimate of a pose based at least in part on the object of known shape and/or location at ¶¶ [0117]-[0118]. At the time of the filing of the present application, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use bundle adjustment to refine an initial pose estimate, as taught by Kidd, when refining (correcting) an initial estimate of the pose (“rotation and … translation… of the c-arm”) as taught by Lee. The motivation for doing so comes from Kidd, which discloses, “Bundle adjustment is robust in that itis tolerant to missing data and it provides a true maximum likelihood estimate.” (Kidd, ¶ [0117]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Kidd with Lee to obtain the invention specified in this claim.
With regards to claim 19, the steps performed by the method of this claim are obvious over the combination of Lee and Kidd for the same reasons as were provided in the discussion of claim 7, which recites an apparatus configured to perform these same steps.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID F DUNPHY whose telephone number is (571)270-1230. The examiner can normally be reached 9 am - 5 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, 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.
/DAVID F DUNPHY/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2673
Prosecution Insights