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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species I Fig. 6, Species II(E) Fig. 13 and Species III(1) Fig.14 in the reply filed on 4/17/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 2-4,8-14,20-22 and 24-26 are withdrawn. Claims 1,5-7,15-19 and 23 are pending.
Claim Objections
Claims 6-7 and 23 are objected to because of the following informalities: wherein or when or another variation is recommended to be used in place of “in a case”.
Claims 15-16 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claims 15-16 are written as an independent claim that depends on claim 1 limitations. Claims 15-16 are best written as independent claims with the necessary claim limitations from claim 1. Appropriate correction is required.
Appropriate correction is required.
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, 5-7, 15-19 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Independent claim 1 recites, for example, the following abstract ideas: “…detect a first image region and a second image region from a medical image…” falls within mental process. There is no specific machine or device that is not known or generic recited in the claim limitations, see MPEP § 2106.05(b). The limitations can be considered a judgment or evaluation which is grouped as a mental process under the 2019 PEG. The detection of the limitations is considered identifying of a first and second region in an image which an individual can mentally “detect” the different regions presented in an image or at most by pen and paper and as such this limitation is considered a mental process. Further, limitation “…cause a display apparatus to display…”, is considered extra solution activities recited at a high level of generality with no specific machine or device disclosed that is not generic or known to perform the limitations. Further, analogous limitations are found in claims 5-7, 17-18.
Independent claim 19 recites, for example, the following abstract ideas: “…detect a first image region and a second image region from a medical image…” and “…determine certainty of the second image…” falls within mental process. There is no specific machine or device that is not known or generic recited in the claim limitations, see MPEP § 2106.05(b). The “detect” limitations can be considered a judgment or evaluation which is grouped as a mental process under the 2019 PEG. The detection of the limitations is considered identifying of a first and second region in an image which an individual can mentally “detect” the different regions presented in an image or at most by pen and paper and as such this limitation is considered a mental process. The “determine” limitations have no specifics to the algorithmic foundation or dimensionality associated with the image and as such can be considered computations that can be performed in the mind using visual inspection or simple pen and paper. Further, limitation “…cause a display apparatus to display…”, is considered extra solution activities recited at a high level of generality with no specific machine or device disclosed that is not generic or known to perform the limitations. Further, analogous limitations are found in claim 23.
The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a “practical application” as defined by the Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis documented in Federal Register 84(4), issued on 07 January 2019, and MPEP § 2106. The limitation of “…a processor…” in claims 1, 5-7, 18-19 and 23, simply represents implementing the abstract ideas with a computer. Further, a mobile device is also considered a computer processing device and thus also represents implementing the abstract ideas with a computer. MPEP § 2106.05(f) notes that “using a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea” is not sufficient to integrate a judicial exception into a practical application as interpreted by the court(s). Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972) “held that simply implementing a mathematical principle on a physical machine, namely a computer, was not a patentable application of that principle and Intellectual Ventures LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2016) established that mental processes encompass acts which, absent anything beyond generic computer components, may be “performed by a human, mentally or with pen and paper.” Intellectual Ventures additionally established that if a claim, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it is still in the mental processes category of abstract ideas unless the step(s) cannot be practically performed in the mind. Therefore, a positive recitation of the associated computer would not necessarily result in patent eligible subject matter.
The dependent claims 15-16 do not sufficiently link the subject matter to a practical application or recite element(s) which constitute significantly more than the abstract ideas identified. The depending claims are directed to additional limitations which encompass abstract ideas consistent with those identified above that are well-understood, routine and/or conventional activity. Further, dependent claims 15-16 merely include limitations that either further define the abstract idea (and thus don’t make the abstract idea any less abstract) or amount to no more than generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use because they’re merely incidental or token additions to the claims that do not alter or affect how the process steps are performed.
Claims 1, 5-7, 15-19 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 and section 33(a) of the America Invents
Act as being directed to or encompassing a human organism. See also Animals - Patentability,
1077 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 24 (April 21, 1987) (indicating that human organisms are excluded from the scope of patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101).
Regarding Claims 1,5-7, 17-19 and 23, the limitation recitation of “…an observation target region including a site of a human body and a lesion…”, implies the human body is part of the invention. Thus, claims 1,5-7, 17-19 and 23 and their dependent claims are rejected under U.S.C. 101.
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.
Claim 1, 5-7, 15-19 and 23 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.
Regarding claim 1, it is unclear where the image for the first and second region is obtained from, it is unclear the metes and bounds of the image regions. Secondly, limitation “…in accordance with the positional relationship and consistency between the site and the lesion” is unclear what is implied by “consistency”. It is unclear what or how the relationship of the site and lesion is considered “consistent”. Further, limitation “…in a display mode” is unclear what entailed in the “display mode”, it is unclear how the display is displaying the regions “in a display mode” it is unclear if there is intended to be multiple display modes that are switched between or various parameters or something else. It is unclear the connection of positional relationship of the image regions and the display mode. The metes and bounds of the claim are unclear. Analogous limitations and rejections are applied for claims 5-7 and 17-18.
Regarding Claim 19, it is unclear where the image for the first and second region is obtained from, it is unclear the metes and bounds of the image regions. Secondly, limitation “…in accordance with the positional relationship and consistency between the site and the lesion” is unclear what is implied by “consistency”. It is unclear what or how the relationship of the site and lesion is considered “consistent”. Thirdly, limitation “…in a display mode” is unclear what entailed in the “display mode”, it is unclear how the display is displaying the regions “in a display mode” it is unclear if there is intended to be multiple display modes that are switched between or various parameters or something else. It is unclear the connection of positional relationship of the image regions and the display mode. Lastly, limitation “…determine certainty of the second image region” is unclear what is entailed in “determining certainty”. It is unclear if a specific approach or algorithm is utilized or what parameters or threshold or something else that is considered in the determination. The metes and bounds of the claim are unclear. Analogous limitations and rejections are applied for claim 23.
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.
Claims 1, 5-7, 15-19 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Meral et. al. (U.S. 20210204914, July 8, 2021)(hereinafter, “Meral”).
Regarding Claim 1, Meral teaches: An image processing apparatus (Figs. 1-2) comprising:
a processor (Fig. 1, element 20, electronic processor, [0035]), wherein
the processor is configured to: detect a first image region and a second image region from a medical image obtained by imaging an observation target region including a site of a human body and a lesion, the first image region indicating the site, the second image region indicating the lesion (“ At 102, the at least one electronic processor 20 is programmed to control the US scanner 14 and the US probe 12 to acquire a series of preoperative images (e.g., 2D, 3D, or 4D images) of a tumor and surrounding blood vessels in a region of interest (ROI) of a patient who is about to undergo neurosurgery. In some examples, the ROI can be the brain of the patient.” [0037]; “At 104, the at least one electronic processor 20 is programmed to provide the GUI 26 via which the acquired preoperative images are labeled with contours of the tumor and the surrounding blood vessels in the ROI.” [0038]; “At 110, the at least one electronic processor 20 is programmed to perform live imaging by controlling the US scanner 14 and the US probe 12 to acquire live (i.e. intraoperative) images (e.g., 2D images) of the tumor and the surrounding blood vessels in the ROI of the patient (e.g., the brain).” [0041]; See Fig. 2); and
cause a display apparatus to display a result of detection of the first image region and the second image region in a display mode in accordance with a positional relationship between the first image region and the second image region, the display mode is determined in accordance with the positional relationship and consistency between the site and the lesion (“Preferably, the images are displayed on the display device 24 with the contours output by the operation 112 superimposed (operation 114), so as to provide live US imaging of the interventional procedure with indications (i.e. “live” contours) of the tumor(s) and surrounding blood vessels.” [0042]; “FIG. 4 shows a contour predicating the tumor site on the “left” side of the image, and the “right” side shows a heat-map displaying the probability of a tumor, where the color-shading darkens as the likelihood of the tumor location increases.” [0051]).
Regarding Claim 15, Meral teaches: A medical diagnostic apparatus (Figs. 1-2) comprising: the image processing apparatus according to claim 1 (The rejections of claim 1 are applied and the limitation is as such rejected under the same rationale. See claim 1);
and an imaging apparatus configured to capture an image of the observation target region (“…the US probe 12 is positioned on or near to a portion of the patient to be scanned…At 102, the at least one electronic processor 20 is programmed to control the US scanner 14 and the US probe 12 to acquire a series of preoperative images…of a tumor and surrounding blood vessels in a region of interest (ROI) of a patient who is about to undergo neurosurgery.” [0037]; “At 110, the at least one electronic processor 20 is programmed to perform live imaging by controlling the US scanner 14 and the US probe 12 to acquire live (i.e. intraoperative) images (e.g., 2D images) of the tumor and the surrounding blood vessels in the ROI of the patient…” [0041]).
Regarding Claim 16, Meral teaches: An ultrasonic endoscope apparatus comprising: the image processing apparatus according to claim 1(The rejections of claim 1 are applied and the limitation is as such rejected under the same rationale. See claim 1);
and an ultrasound apparatus configured to acquire an ultrasound image as the medical image (“…the US probe 12 is positioned on or near to a portion of the patient to be scanned…At 102, the at least one electronic processor 20 is programmed to control the US scanner 14 and the US probe 12 to acquire a series of preoperative images…of a tumor and surrounding blood vessels in a region of interest (ROI) of a patient who is about to undergo neurosurgery.” [0037]; “At 110, the at least one electronic processor 20 is programmed to perform live imaging by controlling the US scanner 14 and the US probe 12 to acquire live (i.e. intraoperative) images (e.g., 2D images) of the tumor and the surrounding blood vessels in the ROI of the patient…” [0041]).
Regarding Claim 5, Meral teaches: An image processing apparatus (Figs. 1-2) comprising:
a processor(Fig. 1, element 20, electronic processor, [0035]),
wherein the processor is configured to: detect a first image region and a second image region from a medical image obtained by imaging an observation target region including a site of a human body and a lesion, the first image region indicating the site, the second image region indicating the lesion (“ At 102, the at least one electronic processor 20 is programmed to control the US scanner 14 and the US probe 12 to acquire a series of preoperative images (e.g., 2D, 3D, or 4D images) of a tumor and surrounding blood vessels in a region of interest (ROI) of a patient who is about to undergo neurosurgery. In some examples, the ROI can be the brain of the patient.” [0037]; “At 104, the at least one electronic processor 20 is programmed to provide the GUI 26 via which the acquired preoperative images are labeled with contours of the tumor and the surrounding blood vessels in the ROI.” [0038]; “At 110, the at least one electronic processor 20 is programmed to perform live imaging by controlling the US scanner 14 and the US probe 12 to acquire live (i.e. intraoperative) images (e.g., 2D images) of the tumor and the surrounding blood vessels in the ROI of the patient (e.g., the brain).” [0041]; See Fig. 2); and
cause a display apparatus to display a result of detection of the first image region and the second image region in a display mode in accordance with a positional relationship between the first image region and the second image region, the positional relationship is defined by an overlapping degree between the first image region and the second image region (“Preferably, the images are displayed on the display device 24 with the contours output by the operation 112 superimposed (operation 114), so as to provide live US imaging of the interventional procedure with indications (i.e. “live” contours) of the tumor(s) and surrounding blood vessels.” [0042]; “FIG. 4 shows a contour predicating the tumor site on the “left” side of the image, and the “right” side shows a heat-map displaying the probability of a tumor, where the color-shading darkens as the likelihood of the tumor location increases.” [0051]).
Regarding Claim 6, Meral teaches: An image processing apparatus (Figs. 1-2) comprising:
a processor (Fig. 1, element 20, electronic processor, [0035]),
wherein the processor is configured to: detect a first image region and a second image region from a medical image obtained by imaging an observation target region including a site of a human body and a lesion, the first image region indicating the site, the second image region indicating the lesion (“ At 102, the at least one electronic processor 20 is programmed to control the US scanner 14 and the US probe 12 to acquire a series of preoperative images (e.g., 2D, 3D, or 4D images) of a tumor and surrounding blood vessels in a region of interest (ROI) of a patient who is about to undergo neurosurgery. In some examples, the ROI can be the brain of the patient.” [0037]; “At 104, the at least one electronic processor 20 is programmed to provide the GUI 26 via which the acquired preoperative images are labeled with contours of the tumor and the surrounding blood vessels in the ROI.” [0038]; “At 110, the at least one electronic processor 20 is programmed to perform live imaging by controlling the US scanner 14 and the US probe 12 to acquire live (i.e. intraoperative) images (e.g., 2D images) of the tumor and the surrounding blood vessels in the ROI of the patient (e.g., the brain).” [0041]; See Fig. 2); and
cause a display apparatus to display a result of detection of the first image region and the second image region in a display mode in accordance with a positional relationship between the first image region and the second image region, the positional relationship is defined by an overlapping degree between the first image region and the second image region, and in a case in which the overlapping degree is greater than or equal to a first degree, the display mode is a mode in which the second image region is displayed so as to be identifiable in the medical image (“Preferably, the images are displayed on the display device 24 with the contours output by the operation 112 superimposed (operation 114), so as to provide live US imaging of the interventional procedure with indications (i.e. “live” contours) of the tumor(s) and surrounding blood vessels.” [0042]; “FIG. 4 shows a contour predicating the tumor site on the “left” side of the image, and the “right” side shows a heat-map displaying the probability of a tumor, where the color-shading darkens as the likelihood of the tumor location increases.” [0051]).
Regarding Claim 7, Meral teaches: An image processing apparatus (Figs. 1-2) comprising:
a processor (Fig. 1, element 20, electronic processor, [0035]),
wherein the processor is configured to: detect a first image region and a second image region from a medical image obtained by imaging an observation target region including a site of a human body and a lesion, the first image region indicating the site, the second image region indicating the lesion (“ At 102, the at least one electronic processor 20 is programmed to control the US scanner 14 and the US probe 12 to acquire a series of preoperative images (e.g., 2D, 3D, or 4D images) of a tumor and surrounding blood vessels in a region of interest (ROI) of a patient who is about to undergo neurosurgery. In some examples, the ROI can be the brain of the patient.” [0037]; “At 104, the at least one electronic processor 20 is programmed to provide the GUI 26 via which the acquired preoperative images are labeled with contours of the tumor and the surrounding blood vessels in the ROI.” [0038]; “At 110, the at least one electronic processor 20 is programmed to perform live imaging by controlling the US scanner 14 and the US probe 12 to acquire live (i.e. intraoperative) images (e.g., 2D images) of the tumor and the surrounding blood vessels in the ROI of the patient (e.g., the brain).” [0041]; See Fig. 2); and
cause a display apparatus to display a result of detection of the first image region and the second image region in a display mode in accordance with a positional relationship between the first image region and the second image region, the positional relationship is defined by an overlapping degree between the first image region and the second image region, and in a case in which the overlapping degree is greater than or equal to a first degree, the display mode is a mode in which the second image region is displayed so as to be identifiable in the medical image and the first image region is displayed so as to be comparable with the second image region (“Preferably, the images are displayed on the display device 24 with the contours output by the operation 112 superimposed (operation 114), so as to provide live US imaging of the interventional procedure with indications (i.e. “live” contours) of the tumor(s) and surrounding blood vessels.” [0042]; “FIG. 4 shows a contour predicating the tumor site on the “left” side of the image, and the “right” side shows a heat-map displaying the probability of a tumor, where the color-shading darkens as the likelihood of the tumor location increases.” [0051]).
Regarding Claim 17, Meral teaches: An image processing method (Fig. 2) comprising:
detecting a first image region and a second image region from a medical image obtained by imaging an observation target region including a site of a human body and a lesion, the first image region indicating the site, the second image region indicating the lesion (“ At 102, the at least one electronic processor 20 is programmed to control the US scanner 14 and the US probe 12 to acquire a series of preoperative images (e.g., 2D, 3D, or 4D images) of a tumor and surrounding blood vessels in a region of interest (ROI) of a patient who is about to undergo neurosurgery. In some examples, the ROI can be the brain of the patient.” [0037]; “At 104, the at least one electronic processor 20 is programmed to provide the GUI 26 via which the acquired preoperative images are labeled with contours of the tumor and the surrounding blood vessels in the ROI.” [0038]; “At 110, the at least one electronic processor 20 is programmed to perform live imaging by controlling the US scanner 14 and the US probe 12 to acquire live (i.e. intraoperative) images (e.g., 2D images) of the tumor and the surrounding blood vessels in the ROI of the patient (e.g., the brain).” [0041]; See Fig. 2); and
causing a display apparatus to display a result of detection of the first image region and the second image region in a display mode in accordance with a positional relationship between the first image region and the second image region, wherein the display mode is determined in accordance with the positional relationship and consistency between the site and the lesion (“Preferably, the images are displayed on the display device 24 with the contours output by the operation 112 superimposed (operation 114), so as to provide live US imaging of the interventional procedure with indications (i.e. “live” contours) of the tumor(s) and surrounding blood vessels.” [0042]; “FIG. 4 shows a contour predicating the tumor site on the “left” side of the image, and the “right” side shows a heat-map displaying the probability of a tumor, where the color-shading darkens as the likelihood of the tumor location increases.” [0051]).
Regarding Claim 18, Meral teaches: A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a program executable by a computer to execute a process (“…a non-transitory storage medium stores instructions readable and executable by a processor in operative communication with an US system and a display device…” [0009]; “The at least one electronic processor 20 is operatively connected with a non-transitory storage medium 28 that stores instructions which are readable and executable by the at least one electronic processor 20 to perform disclosed operations…” [0035]) comprising:
detecting a first image region and a second image region from a medical image obtained by imaging an observation target region including a site of a human body and a lesion, the first image region indicating the site, the second image region indicating the lesion (“ At 102, the at least one electronic processor 20 is programmed to control the US scanner 14 and the US probe 12 to acquire a series of preoperative images (e.g., 2D, 3D, or 4D images) of a tumor and surrounding blood vessels in a region of interest (ROI) of a patient who is about to undergo neurosurgery. In some examples, the ROI can be the brain of the patient.” [0037]; “At 104, the at least one electronic processor 20 is programmed to provide the GUI 26 via which the acquired preoperative images are labeled with contours of the tumor and the surrounding blood vessels in the ROI.” [0038]; “At 110, the at least one electronic processor 20 is programmed to perform live imaging by controlling the US scanner 14 and the US probe 12 to acquire live (i.e. intraoperative) images (e.g., 2D images) of the tumor and the surrounding blood vessels in the ROI of the patient (e.g., the brain).” [0041]; See Fig. 2); and
causing a display apparatus to display a result of detection of the first image region and the second image region in a display mode in accordance with a positional relationship between the first image region and the second image region, the display mode is determined in accordance with the positional relationship and consistency between the site and the lesion (“Preferably, the images are displayed on the display device 24 with the contours output by the operation 112 superimposed (operation 114), so as to provide live US imaging of the interventional procedure with indications (i.e. “live” contours) of the tumor(s) and surrounding blood vessels.” [0042]; “FIG. 4 shows a contour predicating the tumor site on the “left” side of the image, and the “right” side shows a heat-map displaying the probability of a tumor, where the color-shading darkens as the likelihood of the tumor location increases.” [0051]).
Regarding Claim 19, Meral teaches: An image processing apparatus (Figs. 1-2) comprising:
a processor (Fig. 1, element 20, electronic processor, [0035]), wherein the processor is configured to: detect a first image region and a second image region from a medical image obtained by imaging an observation target region including a site of a human body and a lesion, the first image region indicating the site, the second image region indicating the lesion (“At 102, the at least one electronic processor 20 is programmed to control the US scanner 14 and the US probe 12 to acquire a series of preoperative images (e.g., 2D, 3D, or 4D images) of a tumor and surrounding blood vessels in a region of interest (ROI) of a patient who is about to undergo neurosurgery. In some examples, the ROI can be the brain of the patient.” [0037]; “At 104, the at least one electronic processor 20 is programmed to provide the GUI 26 via which the acquired preoperative images are labeled with contours of the tumor and the surrounding blood vessels in the ROI.” [0038]; “At 110, the at least one electronic processor 20 is programmed to perform live imaging by controlling the US scanner 14 and the US probe 12 to acquire live (i.e. intraoperative) images (e.g., 2D images) of the tumor and the surrounding blood vessels in the ROI of the patient (e.g., the brain).” [0041]; See Fig. 2); and
determine certainty of the second image region in accordance with a positional relationship between the first image region and the second image region, the positional relationship is defined by an overlapping degree between the first image region and the second image region (“Preferably, the images are displayed on the display device 24 with the contours output by the operation 112 superimposed (operation 114), so as to provide live US imaging of the interventional procedure with indications (i.e. “live” contours) of the tumor(s) and surrounding blood vessels.” [0042]; “FIG. 4 shows a contour predicating the tumor site on the “left” side of the image, and the “right” side shows a heat-map displaying the probability of a tumor, where the color-shading darkens as the likelihood of the tumor location increases.” [0051]).
Regarding Claim 23, Meral teaches: An image processing apparatus (Figs. 1-2), comprising:
the processor (Fig. 1, element 20, electronic processor, [0035]) is configured to:
detect a first image region and a second image region from a medical image obtained by imaging an observation target region including a site of a human body and a lesion, the first image region indicating the site, the second image region indicating the lesion (“At 102, the at least one electronic processor 20 is programmed to control the US scanner 14 and the US probe 12 to acquire a series of preoperative images (e.g., 2D, 3D, or 4D images) of a tumor and surrounding blood vessels in a region of interest (ROI) of a patient who is about to undergo neurosurgery. In some examples, the ROI can be the brain of the patient.” [0037]; “At 104, the at least one electronic processor 20 is programmed to provide the GUI 26 via which the acquired preoperative images are labeled with contours of the tumor and the surrounding blood vessels in the ROI.” [0038]; “At 110, the at least one electronic processor 20 is programmed to perform live imaging by controlling the US scanner 14 and the US probe 12 to acquire live (i.e. intraoperative) images (e.g., 2D images) of the tumor and the surrounding blood vessels in the ROI of the patient (e.g., the brain).” [0041]; See Fig. 2);
determine the certainty in accordance with a positional relationship between the first image region and the second image region (“…the at least one electronic processor 20 is programmed to apply the NN 30 to the live brain images to generate the live contours of a tumor and surrounding blood vessels imaged in the live brain images. The contours of the tumor and the surrounding blood vessels are thus automatically generated during the surgical procedure. This may be done directly if the US sensor array 16 is capable of sonicating a 3D volume, or may be done in conjunction with a free-hand or motorized sweep of the US probe 12.” [0042]; “The resulting tracked and registered US volumes are sent to the neural network to make predictions of the residual tumor in the swept volume. The predicted segmentation map indicating the tumor areas can either be displayed as a contour for boundary of the binary segmentation map or in pseudo-color overlaid on top of the image indicating the probabilities of the tumor regions.” [0050]); and
determine that the second image region is certain in a case in which the positional relationship is a preset positional relationship and the first image region and the second image region are consistent with each other (“ FIG. 4 shows a contour predicating the tumor site on the “left” side of the image, and the “right” side shows a heat-map displaying the probability of a tumor, where the color-shading darkens as the likelihood of the tumor location increases.” [0051]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Park et. al. U.S. 20180168536 teaches and ultrasound system for lesion detection of breast imaging.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMAL FARAG whose telephone number is (571)270-3432. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 - 5:30 M-F.
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, Keith Raymond can be reached at (571) 270-1790. 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.
/AMAL ALY FARAG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3798
Prosecution Insights