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 .
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 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 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 1-6, 12-15 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramamurthy, et al. (WO 2006/009675) in view of Agarwala (US 7,839,422 B2)
With regard to claim 1, Ramamurthy, et al. (hereinafter “Ramamurthy”) discloses a system, comprising: a memory encoding processor-executable routines; and a processing system comprising one or more processors and configured to access the memory and to execute the processor-executable routines (See for example, Fig. 1 and the associated text), wherein the processor- executable routines, when executed by the processing system, cause the processing system to: obtain a first three-dimensional (3D) medical image i.e., image dataset of a first timepoint, from a first medical imaging volume acquisition, i.e., CT, PET, or SPECT, among others, and a second 3D medical image, i.e., image dataset of a subsequent/second timepoints, from a second medical imaging volume acquisition, i.e., CT, PET, SPECT, a combination of CT and PET or CT and SPECT, among others, (See for example, page 8, paragraphs 1-2; page 9, paragraphs 1-3; page 11, paragraph 3, wherein the first medical imaging volume acquisition and the second medical imaging volume acquisition are integrally registered to each other (See for example, page 13, paragraph 2 - page 14, paragraphs 3); receive a selection (via a user drawing a boundary around, for example, a lesion) of a region of interest, i.e., volume of interest (VOI), in the second 3D medical image (See for example, page 14, paragraph 5 – page 15, last paragraph) . Please note, the claim as drafted does not preclude a selection of a region of interest to be carried out in the first image. Additionally, Ramamurthy at page 15, paragraph 1 discloses: “In an alternative linking embodiment, the user may perform a smart-select on the VOI in the second timepoint and then select an option to link to another timepoint. Subsequently, the user may perform a smart-select on a VOI in a first timepoint and select an option to accept the link.”); perform (See for example, page 15, paragraph 3 – page 16, paragraph 2); and display, on a user interface, the first 3D medical image in a first viewport and the blended region of interest in a second viewport located at the region in the first 3D medical image corresponding to the region of interest (See for example, Figs. 6A and 6B and the associated text). Ramamurthy does not expressly call for the above crossed-out limitation. However, Agarwala (Col. 5, lines 15-22) teaches this feature. for example, Figs. 10-11 and the associated text). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to incorporate the teaching as taught by Agarwala into the system of Ramamurthy, and to do would at least provide a slow gradation of intensity, and as a result allows a user to visually perceive the multiple image segments that have been stitched together as a single source image without visible seams and/or artifacts (See for example, col. 5, lines 24-27). alignment marks instead of two. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Ramamurthy with Agarwala to obtain the invention as specified in claim 1.
With regard to claim 2, the system of claim 1, wherein the processor-executable routines, when executed by the processing system, cause the processing system to integrally register the first medical imaging volume acquisition to the second medical imaging volume acquisition (See for example, page 13, paragraphs 2-4 of Ramamurthy).
With regard to claim 3, the system of claim 1, wherein the first medical imaging volume acquisition and the second medical imaging volume acquisition were acquired with different medical imaging modalities (See for example, page 3, paragraph 1 “different modalities”; and page 13, paragraph 2, lines 3-4 of Ramamurthy ).
With regard to claim 4, the system of claim 1, wherein the first medical imaging volume acquisition and the second medical imaging volume acquisition were acquired with the same medical imaging modality (See for example, page 3, paragraph 1 “same/one modality or modalities”; and page 13, paragraph 2, lines 4-5 of Ramamurthy).
With regard to claim 5, the system of claim 1, wherein the processor-executable routines, when executed by the processing system, cause the processing system to display the second 3D medical image in a third viewport adjacent to the first viewport (See for example, Figs. 6A and 6B of Ramamurthy ) .
With regard to claim 6, the system of claim 1, wherein the processor-executable routines, when executed by the processing system, cause the processing system to receive a first user input (via usage of a tool of the control area) to cause display of the blended region of interest in the second viewport located at the region in the first 3D medical image corresponding to the region of interest (See for example, page 16, lines 1-7 of Ramamurthy).
Claim 12 is rejected the same as claim 1 except claim 12 is a method claim. Thus, argument similar to that presented above for claim 1 is applicable to claim 12.
Claims 13, 14, and 15, are rejected the same as claims 3, 4, and 6 respectively except claims 13, 14, and 15 are method claims. Thus, arguments similar to those presented above for claims 3, 4, and 6 and are respectively applicable to claims 13, 14, and 15.
Claim 20 is rejected the same as claim 12. Thus, argument similar to that presented above for claim 12 is applicable to claim 20. Claim 20 distinguishes from claim 12 only in that it recites a non-transitory computer-readable medium, comprising processor executable code. Fortunately, Ramamurthy (See for example, item 130, in Fig. 1 and the associated text) teaches this feature.)
Claims 7 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramamurthy in view of Agarwala as applied to claims 1-6, 12-15, and 20 above, and further in view of Ichinose, et al. (US 2023/0281810 A1).
With regard to claim 7, Ramamurthy (as modified by Agarwala) discloses all of the claimed subject matter as already addressed above in paragraph 6, and incorporated herein by reference. Ramamurthy (as modified by Agarwala) does not expressly call for causing the processing system to receive a second user input to cause hiding of the second viewport and to instead cause display of the region in the first 3D medical image corresponding to the region of interest. However, Ichinose, et al. (See for example, paragraph 0008). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to incorporate the teaching as taught by Ichinose, et al. into the system of Ramamurthy (as modified by Agarwala), if for no other reason than to provide the ability to display or hide the plurality of region of interest included in the medical image. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Ramamurthy (as modified by Agarwala) with Ichinose, et al. to obtain the invention as specified in claim 7.
Claim 16 is rejected the same as claim 7 except claim 16 is a method claim. Thus, argument similar to that presented above for claim 7 is applicable to claim 16.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramamurthy in view of Agarwala as applied to claims 1-6, 12-15, and 20 above, and further in view of Douglas, et al. (US 9,980,691 B2).
With regard to claim 11, Ramamurthy (as modified by Agarwala) discloses all of the claimed subject matter as already addressed above in paragraph 6, and incorporated herein by reference. Ramamurthy (as modified by Agarwala) does not expressly call for wherein the second viewport comprises a three-dimensional cursor having a three-dimensional cursor setting for rendering the region of interest. However, Douglas, et al. (See for example, col. 17, lines 14-19; and col. 17, line 36 – col. 20, line 58) teach this feature. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to incorporate the teaching as taught by Douglas, et al. into the system of Ramamurthy (as modified by Agarwala) so that, among other things, a selection of the volume of interest may be made through use of the 3D cursor. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Ramamurthy (as modified by Agarwala) with Douglas, et al. to obtain the invention as specified in claim 11.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-10 and 17-19 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 Application Publication No. 2006/0004275 (See for example, paragraphs 0022-0034).
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