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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) filed on 10/29/2024 was considered and placed on the file of record by the examiner.
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 1, 3, 12, 14, 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. The dependent claims 2, 4-11, 13, and 15-19 are rejected based on their dependency.
The following claims 1, 12, and 23 highlighted elements are vague and indefinite because it is not clear whether the “post-processing operation” is performed or optional;
“the first operation parameter of a post-processing operation relating to whether the post-processing operation needs to be performed on target imaging data collected in the medical scan”
The following claims 3 and 14 highlighted elements are vague and indefinite;
“wherein the scanning protocol further includes a parameter value of a system parameter corresponding to the target subject, the system parameter relating to whether imaging data relating to the target subject needs to be post-processed, and the performing at least part of the one or more post-processing operations on the target imaging data includes: determining whether the target imaging data needs to be post-processed based on the parameter value of the system parameter”
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 1-5, 8, 10-16, 19, 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Liu et al. (US 2021/0169432).
Regarding claim 1, Liu teaches a method for image processing, implemented on a computing device having at least one processor and at least one storage device, the method comprising:
determining a scanning protocol of a medical scan of a target subject, the scanning protocol including a first parameter value of a first operation parameter of each of one or more post-processing operations (see para. 0082-0083, Liu discusses the control module cause a medical device to scan a subject based on scan range and at least one parameter value of at least one scan parameter);
the first operation parameter of a post-processing operation relating to whether the post-processing operation needs to be performed on target imaging data collected in the medical scan (see para. 0097-0098, Liu discusses identification model determined based on the updated parameter values; see para. 0108, Liu discusses determine initial parameter values of the scan parameters based on the scan area of the subject);
obtaining the target imaging data of the target subject collected in the medical scan that is performed according to the scanning protocol (see para. 0117, Liu discusses may identify at least one feature point in the image data based on the scan area of the subject); and
performing at least part of the one or more post-processing operations on the target imaging data based on the first parameter value of the first operation parameter of each of the one or more post-processing operations (see para. 0117, 0121, Liu discusses identifying feature points in the image data based on the scan area of the subject using different sets of parameter values of scan parameters and different reconstruction parameters).
Regarding claim 2, Liu teaches wherein the one or more post-processing operations include at least one of an organizational analysis, a region of interest (ROI) segmentation, a noise reduction, or a resolution adjustment (see para. 0090, Liu discusses performing denoising operation on image data; see para. 0128, 0139, Liu discusses image region segmentation).
Regarding claim 3, Liu teaches wherein the scanning protocol further includes a parameter value of a system parameter corresponding to the target subject, the system parameter relating to whether imaging data relating to the target subject needs to be post-processed, and the performing at least part of the one or more post-processing operations on the target imaging data includes: determining whether the target imaging data needs to be post-processed based on the parameter value of the system parameter; in response to determining that the target imaging data needs to be post-processed, performing the at least part of the one or more post-processing operations on the target imaging data based on the first parameter value of the first operation parameter of each of the one or more post-processing operations (see para. 0117, 0121, Liu discusses may identify at least one feature point in the image data based on the scan area of the subject using different sets of parameter values of scan parameters and different reconstruction parameters).
Regarding claim 4, Liu teaches wherein the first parameter value of the first operation parameter of each of the one or more post-processing operations is determined by: for each of the one or more post-processing operations, determining a first recommendation value of the first operation parameter of the post-processing operation (see para. 0117, 0121, Liu discusses may identify at least one feature point in the image data based on the scan area of the subject using different sets of parameter values of scan parameters and different reconstruction parameters); and
determining the first parameter value of the first operation parameter of the post-processing operation based on the first recommendation value and a user input (see para. 0105, Liu discusses scan protocol may be previously generated e.g., manually input by a user or determined by the processing device and stored in a storage device. The processing device may retrieve the scan protocol from the storage device, and determine the at least one parameter value of at least one scan parameter based on the scan protocol).
Regarding claim 5, Liu teaches wherein the determining a first recommendation value of the first operation parameter of the post-processing operation includes: determining the first recommendation value of the first operation parameter of the post-processing operation based on feature information relating to the target subject (see para. 0105, Liu discusses scan protocol may be previously generated e.g., manually input by a user or determined by the processing device and stored in a storage device. The processing device may retrieve the scan protocol from the storage device, and determine the at least one parameter value of at least one scan parameter based on the scan protocol).
Regarding claim 8, Liu teaches wherein the scanning protocol includes a third parameter value of a second operation parameter of each of the one or more post-processing operations, the second operation parameter of a post-processing operation relating to the type of data based on which the post-processing operation is performed (see para. 0117, 0121, Liu discusses identifying at least one feature point in the image data based on the scan area of the subject using different sets of parameter values of scan parameters and different reconstruction parameters).
Regarding claim 10, Liu teaches further comprising: generating an analysis report of the target subject based on post-processed imaging data (see para. 0117, Lui discusses image analysis on a terminal device that displays the image data).
Regarding claim 11, Liu teaches further comprising: displaying the scanning protocol of the medical scan via a user interface (see para. 0117, Lui discusses the user may specify the at least one feature point on an interface e.g., implemented on a terminal device that displays the image data).
Claim 12 is rejected as applied to claim 1 as pertaining to a corresponding system.
Claim 13 is rejected as applied to claim 2 as pertaining to a corresponding system.
Claim 14 is rejected as applied to claim 3 as pertaining to a corresponding system.
Claim 15 is rejected as applied to claim 4 as pertaining to a corresponding system.
Claim 16 is rejected as applied to claim 5 as pertaining to a corresponding system.
Claim 19 is rejected as applied to claim 8 as pertaining to a corresponding system.
Claim 23 is rejected as applied to claim 1 as pertaining to a corresponding non-transitory computer readable medium.
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 6, 7, 9, 17, 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (US 2021/0169432) in view of Lyman et al. (US 2022/0005187).
Regarding claim 6, Liu teaches wherein the performing at least part of the one or more post-processing operations on the target imaging data based on the first parameter value of the first operation parameter of each of the one or more post-processing operations includes:
determining a second parameter value of the first operation parameter of each of the one or more post-processing operations based on the first parameter value of the first operation parameter of each of the one or more post-processing operations and the analysis result (see para. 0113, Liu discusses first scan area corresponds to a first set of parameter values of the scan parameters, and the second scan area corresponds to a second set of parameter values of the scan parameters); and
performing the at least part of the one or more post-processing operations on the target imaging data based on the second parameter value of the first operation parameter of each of the one or more post-processing operations (see para. 0117, 0121, Liu discusses may identify at least one feature point in the image data based on the scan area of the subject using different sets of parameter values of scan parameters and different reconstruction parameters).
Liu does not expressly disclose generating an analysis result by performing abnormity analysis on the target imaging data. However, Lyman teaches generating an analysis result by performing abnormity analysis on the target imaging data (see para. 0050, Lyman discusses medical scan image analysis functions can be used to determine whether or not a medical scan is normal, to detect the location of an abnormality in one or more slices of a medical scan, and/or to characterize a detected abnormality).
Motivation to combine may be gleaned from the prior art considered. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Liu with Lyman to derive at the invention of claim 6. The result would have been expected, routine, and predictable in order to perform medical image analysis.
The determination of obviousness is predicated upon the following: One skilled in the art would have been motivated to modify Liu in this manner in order to improve medical image analysis by implementing operating parameters to adjust scanning settings. Furthermore, the prior art collectively includes each element claimed (though not all in the same reference), and one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements in this manner explained using known engineering design, interface and/or programming techniques, without changing a fundamental operating principle of Liu, while the teaching of Lyman continues to perform the same function as originally taught prior to being combined, in order to produce the repeatable and predictable result of implementing parameters to perform medical image scans. The Liu and Lyman systems perform medical image analysis, therefore a person having ordinary skill in the art would have reasonable expectation of success in the combination yielding predictable results. It is for at least the aforementioned reasons that the examiner has reached a conclusion of obviousness with respect to the claim in question.
Regarding claim 7, Lyman teaches wherein the generating an analysis result by performing an abnormity analysis on the target imaging data includes: obtaining an abnormity analysis model, the abnormity analysis model being a trained machine learning model (see para. 0127, Lyman discusses training a neural network for abnormality detection); and
generating the analysis result based on the target imaging data using the abnormity analysis model (see para. 0127, Lyman discusses abnormality classification using the trained model).
The same motivation of claim 6 is applied to claim 7. Motivation to combine may be gleaned from the prior art considered. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Liu with Lyman to derive at the invention of claim 7. The result would have been expected, routine, and predictable in order to perform medical image analysis.
Regarding claim 9, Liu does not expressly disclose wherein the third parameter value of the second operation parameter of each of the one or more post-processing operations is determined by: for each of the one or more post-processing operations, determining a second recommendation value of the second operation parameter of the post-processing operation; and determining the third parameter value of the post-processing operation based on the second recommendation value and a user input.
However, Lyman teaches wherein the third parameter value of the second operation parameter of each of the one or more post-processing operations is determined by: for each of the one or more post-processing operations, determining a second recommendation value of the second operation parameter of the post-processing operation (see figure 14B, para. 0303, Lyman discusses receiver operating characteristic (ROC) parameters); and
determining the third parameter value of the post-processing operation based on the second recommendation value and a user input. (see figure 14B, para. 0303, Lyman discusses receiver operating characteristic (ROC) parameters that include a plurality of ROC set points, wherein each of the plurality of ROC set points correspond to one of the plurality of interface functions includes presenting for display, via an interactive user interface).
Motivation to combine may be gleaned from the prior art considered. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Liu with Lyman to derive at the invention of claim 9. The result would have been expected, routine, and predictable in order to perform medical image analysis.
The determination of obviousness is predicated upon the following: One skilled in the art would have been motivated to modify Liu in this manner in order to improve medical image analysis by implementing operating parameters to adjust scanning settings. Furthermore, the prior art collectively includes each element claimed (though not all in the same reference), and one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements in this manner explained using known engineering design, interface and/or programming techniques, without changing a fundamental operating principle of Liu, while the teaching of Lyman continues to perform the same function as originally taught prior to being combined, in order to produce the repeatable and predictable result of implementing parameters to perform medical image scans. The Liu and Lyman systems perform medical image analysis, therefore a person having ordinary skill in the art would have reasonable expectation of success in the combination yielding predictable results. It is for at least the aforementioned reasons that the examiner has reached a conclusion of obviousness with respect to the claim in question.
Claim 17 is rejected as applied to claim 6 as pertaining to a corresponding system.
Claim 18 is rejected as applied to claim 7 as pertaining to a corresponding system.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Lee et al. (US 2023/0058450) discusses scan parameter is a value set by a user to capture the plurality of ultrasound images 100 through the ultrasound imaging device.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNY A CESE whose telephone number is (571) 270-1896. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Friday, 9am – 4pm.
If attempts to reach the primary examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Gregory Morse can be reached on (571) 272-3838. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Kenny A Cese/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2663
Prosecution Insights