DETAILED ACTION
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 and 17 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 term “likely” renders the claim indefinite because it’s unclear whether the error is present or not.
Claims 2-10 are rejected for being dependent on rejected claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 17 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if 112 rejection is overcome and rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 1-10 would be allowable if the 112 rejection is overcome by claim amendment or persuasive arguments.
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 11, 12, 14-16, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buelow et al. (Pub. No. US 2024/0237955) in view of Lupu et al. (Pub. No. US 2012/20254872) further in view of de Waele (Pub. NO. US 2018/0033169).
Regarding claim 16, Buelow teaches method for harmonizing data (image data) received from a data collection device [Para. 52 “The scanner data receiver 208 receives scanner information in the form of image data, as individual image files or image file stacks of slices, from a medical diagnostic device.”], the method comprising:
However, Buelow doesn’t explicitly teach harmonizing data received from a plurality of data collection devices.
Lupu teaches harmonizing data (data standardization) received from a plurality of data collection devices (laboratory instruments 60a-c) [Para. 27 “The LND 20 is in communication with laboratory instruments 60a-c and includes computer-executable instructions for handling instrument control and data acquisition. The laboratory instruments 60a-c can include, for example, chromatographic instruments 60a, detectors 60b (e.g., UV detectors), and mass spectrometers 60c”; Para. 29 “During data acquisition, the LND 20 receives the data (e.g., chromatographic and/or mass spectrometry (MS) data) acquired by the laboratory instruments 60a-c in a format native to the particular instrument.”; Para. 29 “During data acquisition, the LND 20 receives the data (e.g., chromatographic and/or mass spectrometry (MS) data) acquired by the laboratory instruments 60a-c in a format native to the particular instrument. The LND 20 then translates the acquired data into a unified data format, as described herein, and stores the converted data in a secure file buffer, with a rolling SHA1 checksum, incremented with each data packet, to ensure fidelity and security of the data.” and Para. 33 “This data standardization can also help to increase the exchange of information within an organization (e.g., between product development and product manufacturing), and, in some cases, even globally (e.g., with third-party partners)”].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date to modify Buelow’s tube current modulation overlay system by incorporating Lupu’s teaching of harmonizing (data standardization) through conversion into a same format (unified data format) so that Buelow’s received scanner information and tube current values are standardized before normalization and visualization. This medication improves Buelow by enabling received data from multiple devices to be managed in one common representation, thereby improving interoperability and downstream graphical processing.
Buelow doesn’t explicitly teach converting the data into a unified markup format, thereby generating converted data.
However, Lupu teaches converting the data into a unified markup format (unified data format), thereby generating converted data [Para. 29 “The LND 20 then translates the acquired data into a unified data format, as described herein, and stores the converted data in a secure file buffer, with a rolling SHA1 checksum, incremented with each data packet, to ensure fidelity and security of the data.” and “A final checksum is calculated upon acquisition completion and the raw data file, in the unified data format, is delivered to the database 40, where the raw data file is stored and locked”].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date to modify Buelow’s tube-current normalization process by using Lupu’s same format (unified data format) as the source format for Buelow’s normalized tube-current values after data conversion. This medication improves Buelow to reduce format dependent discrepancies before color scale mapping.
Buelow teaches receiving (retrieving) a file containing the converted data in the unified markup format [Para. 29 “A final checksum is calculated upon acquisition completion and the raw data file, in the unified data format, is delivered to the database 40, where the raw data file is stored and locked.”; Para. 30 “The application server 30 retrieves data (from the database 40), processes and presents data to a graphical user interface 70”].
Buelow teaches normalizing the tube current values to a specified range [Para. 55].
However, Buelow doesn’t explicitly about converted data.
Lupu teaches having converted data using the unified markup format [Para. 27 and 29].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date to modify Buelow’s tube-current normalization process by using Lupu’s same format (unified data format) as the source format for Buelow’s normalized tube-current values after data conversion. This medication improves Buelow to reduce format dependent discrepancies before color scale mapping.
Buelow teaches mapping a range of each data stream (tube current values) in the file (DICOM files) to a range of values in a color bar (color bar) [Para. 53 “DICOM files include tube current values in the metadata of each respective file header and may be extracted with, for example, a packet parser.”; Para. 42 “Further, in some examples and without imputing limitation, a horizontal bar (relative to the axial extent) may be aligned with the axial positioning of the 3D CT scout image and display a color bar with a representation of the tube current modulation”. It’s clear that the steps are performed for each stream. Para. 44].
Buelow in view Lupu doesn’t explicitly teach translating each sequence in the converted data into a corresponding pixel column, thereby generating an image from the converted data.
De Waele teaches translating each sequence (sample data) in the converted data into a corresponding pixel column (pixel column), thereby generating an image from the converted data [Para. 18 “the selection of sample data made in step 320 is divided into pixel columns”; and Para. 19 “Thus, the first pixel column will include the first 45 samples, the second pixel column will include the next 45 samples, etc.”].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date to modify Buelow in view of Lupu’s scout scan image generation process by incorporating deWaele’s division of sequence (sample data) into pixel column units so that the modified Buelow workflow assigns selected converted data samples to columns before color transformation. This modification improves Buelow by making the generated image resolution aware, thereby increasing readability when many data samples are visualized.
Claim 11 is also rejected for the same reason as claim 16. Furthermore, Buelow teaches a device to perform all claim limitations [1, 2A, 2D and related description].
Regarding claims 12 and 18, Buelow teaches wherein translating each sequence in the converted data further comprises translating each sequence in the converted data into the corresponding pixel column (vertical pixel column) and a corresponding color in the color bar (color scale) represents a y-axis [Para. 63].
However, Buelow in view of Lupu doesn’t explicitly that a column height in the corresponding pixel column represents an x-axis.
De Waele teaches that a column height in the corresponding pixel column represents an x-axis [Para. 13, 18 and 19].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date to modify Buelow in view Lupu’s scout-scan image-genration process by incorporating de Waele’s division of sequence (sample data) into pixel column (pixel column) units so that the modified Buelow workflow assigns selected converted-data samples to columns before color transformation. This medication improves Buelow by making the generated image (RGB scout scan image) resolution-aware and less cluttered, thereby increasing readability when many data samples are visualized.
Regarding claims 14 and 19, Buelow teaches wherein similar types of data (same anatomical regions) in the image are co-located (stocked “fingerprints”) [Para. 88, and 89].
Regarding claim 15 and 20, Buelow teaches generating a plurality of mages (plurality of exam fingerprints) corresponding to data [Para. 88].
However, Buelow doesn’t explicitly teach the rest of claim limitations.
Lupu teaches generating a plurality of images corresponding to data from respective devices (laboratory instruments 60a-c) in the plurality of data collection devices (laboratory instruments 60a-c) [Para. 27 and 29].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date to modify Buelow’s tube current modulation overlay system by incorporating Lupu’s teaching of harmonizing (data standardization) through conversion into a same format (unified data format) so that Buelow’s received scanner information and tube current values are standardized before normalization and visualization. This medication improves Buelow by enabling received data from multiple devices to be managed in one common representation, thereby improving interoperability and downstream graphical processing.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buelow et al. (Pub. No. US 2024/0237955) in view of Lupu et al. (Pub. No. US 2012/20254872) further in view of De Waele (Pub. NO. US 2018/0033169) further in view of Simske (Pub. No. US 20040017941).
Regarding claim 13, Buelow teaches wherein the image generator is further configured to generate the image [Para. 64].
However, Buelow in view of Lupu further in view of de Waele doesn’t explicitly teach the rest of claim limitations.
Simske teaches image generator is further configured to generate the image such that the image includes regions corresponding to different types of data [Para. 11].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date to modify Buelow in view Lupu’s generated colorized image, as standardized using Lupu and pixel-column rendered using de Waele, by incorporating Simske’s teaching of image organizes different harmonized data categories into identifiable regions. This modification improves Buelow by enabling region-specific processing of different data categories in the generated image, thereby improving downstream visualization and analysis.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SOLOMON G BEZUAYEHU whose telephone number is (571)270-7452. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 10 AM-7 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, O’Neal Mistry can be reached on 313-446-4912. 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 800-786-0101 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SOLOMON G BEZUAYEHU/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2666
Prosecution Insights