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 § 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 9 and 10 recite the limitation "the reference image" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
Notice re prior art available under both pre-AIA and AIA
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to ATA 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 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.
Examiner's Note
Examiner has cited particular columns and line numbers or figures in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
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.
Claims 1-2, 10, and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hiasa (US 2024/0127613 A1) in view of Weese, et al. (US 7,062,078 B2).
With regard to claim 1, a computer-implemented method for compensating for differences in medical images (See for example, Figs. 1-3 and the associated text), the method comprising: receiving image data comprising a temporal series of medical images the temporal series including one or more medical images generated by a first type of imaging modality, i.e., x-ray, and one or more medical images generated by a second type of imaging modality, i.e., CT, the first type of imaging modality being different from the second type of imaging modality (See for example 0065; and Fig. 3); generating (via registration processing unit 30 which includes normalizing unit 31, in Fig. 3), from the temporal series of medical images, a normalized temporal series of medical images representing images generated by a common type of imaging modality (via matching the DDR image with the simple X-ray image (See for example paragraph 0068; and 0077-0086. Please note, page 10, lines 4-6 of the specification describes the common type of imaging modality as first type of imaging modality, among other things ); outputting the normalized temporal series of medical images and/or one or more measurement values derived from the normalized temporal series of medical images (See for example, paragraph 0087). Hiasa does capture two medical images at different times, i.e., at time t1 using the x-ray imaging, and at time t2 using the CT imaging in a single event and/or chest X-ray image, and the CT image is obtained by capturing slice images of a chest in a cross-sectional direction while changing a position in a body axis direction (See for example, paragraph 0056), which exhibits the same concept as temporal series medical images (See also Figs. 2-3, and the associated text). Nonetheless, Weese, et al. (See for example, col. 2, line 63 – col. 3, line 8) teach this feature. Hiasa and Weese, et al. are combinable because they are from the same field of endeavor, i.e., registering images obtained from different imaging modalities (See for example, See for example, col. 2, line 63 – col. 3, line 8). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the teaching as taught by Weese, et al. into the system of Hiasa, and to do so would at least allow the receiving and registering a series of temporally successively acquired images (See for example, the Abstract). Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Hiasa with Weese, et al. to obtain the invention as specified in claim 1.
With regard to claim 2, the computer-implemented method according to claim 1, wherein the first type of imaging modality is a projection imaging modality and the second type of imaging modality is a volumetric imaging modality, i.e., CT imaging modality; and wherein the common type of imaging modality is the projection imaging modality. Based on the description made at page 9, line 34- page 10, line 6, this feature reads on the first imaging modality (X-ray) of Hiasa; and wherein the normalized temporal series of medical images is generated by providing the normalized temporal series of medical images as a combination of the one or more medical images from the temporal series that are generated by the first type of imaging modality and one or more projection images, and wherein the one or more projection images are provided by projecting the one or more medical images generated by the second type of imaging modality, i.e., CT imaging, such that the one or more projected images correspond, i.e., match, to one or more of the medical images generated by the first type of imaging modality (See for example, paragraphs 0068 and 0077-0086 O Hiasa).
With regard to claim 10, the computer-implemented method according to claim 1, wherein the reference image is provided by an image from the received temporal series of medical images, an image from the normalized temporal series of medical images, or an atlas image (See for example, col. 4, lines 5-52 of Weese, et al.).
Claim 14 is rejected the same as claim 1 except claim 14 is an apparatus claim. Thus, argument similar to that presented above for claim 1 is applicable to claim 14. Applicant’s attention is further invited to Figure 1 of Hiasa.
Claim 15 is rejected the same as claim 1. Thus, argument similar to that presented above for claim 1 is applicable to claim 15. Claim 15 distinguishes from claim 1 only in that it recites a non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising executable instructions. Fortunately, Hiasa (See for example, 0053-0054; and Fig. 1) teaches this feature.
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hiasa in view of Weese, et al. as applied to claims 1-2, 10, and 14-15 above, and further in view of Dehghan Marvast, et al. (US 10,327,724 B2).
With regard to claim 3, Hiasa (as modified by Weese, et al.) discloses all of the claimed subject matter as already addressed above in paragraph 8, and incorporated herein by reference. Hiasa (as modified by Weese, et al.) does not expressly call for wherein the
projecting comprises projecting the one or more medical images generated by the second type
of imaging modality onto a virtual detector using a virtual source. However, Dehghan Marvast, et al. (See for example, col. 6, lines 40-54) teach this feature. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the teaching as taught by Dehghan Marvast, et al. into the system of Hiasa (as modified by Weese, et al.), if for no other reason than to project images generated by the CT onto a virtual detector using a virtual source as shown in Figure 4. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Hiasa (as modified by Weese, et al.) with Dehghan Marvast, et al. obtain the invention as specified in claim 3.
With regard to claim 4, the computer-implemented method according to claim 2, wherein the projecting is based on a known relative positioning between the virtual source, the virtual detector, and a subject represented in the one or more medical images generated by the second type of imaging modality; and/or (emphasis added by the examiner) wherein the projecting comprises adjusting a relative positioning between the virtual source, the virtual detector, and the one or more medical images generated by the second type of imaging modality such that a shape of one or more anatomical features in the projected one or more images corresponds to a shape of the one or more corresponding anatomical features in the one or more medical images generated by the first type of imaging modality (See for example, Fig. 4 and the associated text of Dehghan Marvast, et al.).
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hiasa in view of Weese, et al. as applied to claims 1-2, 10, and 14-15 above, and further in view of Suri, et al. (US 2008/0161687 A1).
With regard to claim 3, Hiasa (as modified by Weese, et al.) discloses all of the claimed subject matter as already addressed above in paragraph 8, and incorporated herein by reference. Hiasa (as modified by Weese, et al.) does not expressly call for wherein the generating the normalized temporal series of medical images comprises: warping one or more of the images in the normalized temporal series of medical images such that a shape of one or more anatomical features in the warped one or more images, corresponds to a shape of the one or more anatomical features in a reference image. reference image pixels. The problem to be solved by this limitation may therefore be regarded as how to match deformed images so that their shape of anatomical features may match the shape of an anatomical features of a reference image. Confronted with this mentioned problem the person skilled in the art would look for alternatives in the field of medical image processing. The skilled person would therefore find Suri, et al. disclosing “ . . . image registration is used to find a deformation between a pair or group of similar anatomical objects such that a point-to-point correspondence is established between the images being registered. The correspondence means that any tissue or structure identified in one image can be deformed back and forth between the two images using the deformation provided by the registration. . . . In order to effectively align the images 1002, 1004 to allow transfer of data (e.g., prior biopsy locations) from one of the images to the other, the images must be aligned to a common reference frame and then the prior image (e.g., 1002) may be deformed to match the shape of the newly acquired image (e.g., 1004). In this regard, corresponding structures or landmarks of the images may be aligned to position the images in a common reference frame.” (See paragraph 0057). Hiasa (as modified by Weese, et al.) and Suri, et al. are combinable because they are from the same field of endeavor, i.e., medical image processing/registering (See for example, the Abstract). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the teaching as taught by Suri et al. into the system of Hiasa (as modified by Weese, et al.) so that the shape of one image feature corresponds to another by introducing deformation to the images (See for example, paragraph 0057). Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Wen (as modified by Coffman) with Suri, et al. to obtain the invention as specified in claim 5.
With regard to claim 6, the computer-implemented method according to claim 5, wherein the warping is based on a mapping between a plurality of corresponding landmarks represented in both the warped image and the reference image (See for example, paragraph 0057 of Suri, et al.).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hiasa in view of Weese, et al. as applied to claims 1-2, 10, and 14-15 above, and further in view of Tan, at al. (US 2022/0101048 A1).
With regard to claim 8, Hiasa (as modified by Weese, et al.) discloses all of the claimed subject matter as already addressed above in paragraph 8, and incorporated herein by reference. While Hiasa (as modified by Weese, et al.) does define an anatomical region of interest using the x-ray and CT images (See for example, paragraph 0015 of Hiasa), Hiasa (as modified by Weese, et al.) does not expressly call for suppressing one or more image features outside the region of interest, or within the region of interest, in the normalized temporal series of medical images. However, Tan, et al. (See for example, paragraph 0052) teach this feature. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the teaching as taught by Tan, et al. into the system of Hiasa (as modified by Weese, et al.), and to do so would at least allow removing anatomical features/parts outside a defined region of interest having the desired features (See for example, paragraph 0052). Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Wen (as modified by Coffman) with Tan, et al. to obtain the invention as specified in claim 8.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7 and 11-12 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US Patent No. 8,463,012 (See for example, col. 4, line 41-col. 5, line 9; and col. 8, lines 24-63).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL G MARIAM whose telephone number is (571)272-7394. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:00 EST.
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, Mathew Bella can be reached at (571)272-7778. 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.
/DANIEL G MARIAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2675
Prosecution Insights