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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed on 14 November, 2024.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 24 October, 2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 8 states “an initial contouring in the second slice image”, claim 9 then states “the initial contouring”. It is unclear if this is the “initial contouring in the second slice image” or a different “initial contouring”. As written, claim 9 could be referring to “the initial contouring” and “a modified contouring” of the first slice image, this should be amended to make clear to which slice these contours refer.
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 8 states “an initial contouring in the second slice image”, claim 9 then states “the initial contouring”. It is unclear if this is the “initial contouring in the second slice image” or a different “initial contouring”. As written, claim 9 could be referring to “the initial contouring” and “a modified contouring” of the first slice image. Finally, claim 10 then states “the initial contouring” and “the modified contouring”. It is unclear if this is the “initial contouring in the second slice image” or a different “initial contouring”, additionally claim 10 states “the modified contouring”, however claim 9 references “a modified contouring of the first slice image” and claim 8 pertains to a step of modifying an initial contouring in the second slice image. It cannot be discerned which modified contouring claim 10 is referring to. As such the examiner will examine claim 10 as if the modified contouring is the same as “a modified contouring of the first slice image”.
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 8 states “an initial contouring in the second slice image”, claim 11 then states “the initial contouring”. It is unclear if this is the “initial contouring in the second slice image” or a different “initial contouring”.
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 12 states “the initial contouring… of the first image slice”. There is no mention of an initial contouring of the first image slice in claim 12, or claims 11, 8, or 1 from which 12 depends.
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 16 states the step of “wherein determining, by using the reference contoured contour information…” in lines 1 – 3 but depends from claim 13. This limitation is claimed in claim 15, therefore the examiner believes the dependency of this claim should be from claim 15, not 13. For the purposes of examination, the examiner will examine this claim as if it were to depend from claim 15.
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 17 states “the first slice image reference”. There is no mention of a first slice image reference in claim 17, or claims 15 or 1 from which 17 depends.
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 – 10, 13, 15, and 18 - 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
When reviewing independent claim 1, and based upon consideration of all of the relevant factors with respect to the claim as a whole, claim 1 is held to claim an abstract idea without reciting elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea and is therefore rejected as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101. The Examiner will analyze claim 1, and similar rationale applies to independent claim 19 and 20. The rationale, under MPEP § 2106, for this finding is explained below:
The claimed invention (1) must be directed to one of the four statutory categories, and (2) must not be wholly directed to subject matter encompassing a judicially recognized exception, as defined below. The following two step analysis is used to evaluate these criteria.
Step 1: Is the claim directed to one of the four patent-eligible subject matter categories: process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
When examining the claim under 35 U.S.C. 101, the Examiner interprets that the claims is related to a process since the claim is directed to an image contouring method.
Step 2a, Prong 1: Does the claim wholly embrace a judicially recognized exception, which includes laws of nature, physical phenomena, and abstract ideas, or is it a particular practical application of a judicial exception?
The Examiner interprets that the judicial exception applies since claim 1 limitations of “obtaining a plurality of slice images”, “obtaining reference contouring information in a first slice image among the plurality of slice images”, and “determining, based on the reference contouring information, a target contouring in a second slice image among the plurality of slice images” are directed to an abstract idea. The claim is related to a mental process by each image being easily performed by a human mind . If the claim recites a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea enumerated in MPEP § 2106.04(a), a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon), the claim requires further analysis in Prong Two.
Step 2a, Prong 2: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
The Examiner interprets that claim 1 limitation does not provide additional elements or combination of additional elements to a practical application since the claim is generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h). See, MPEP §2106.04(a), Because a judicial exception is not eligible subject matter, Bilski, 561 U.S. at 601, 95 USPQ2d at 1005-06 (quoting Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. at 309, 206 USPQ at 197 (1980)), if there are no additional claim elements besides the judicial exception, or if the additional claim elements merely recite another judicial exception, that is insufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See, e.g., RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co., 855 F.3d 1322, 1327, 122 USPQ2d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ("Adding one abstract idea (math) to another abstract idea (encoding and decoding) does not render the claim non-abstract"). OR Genetic Techs. v. Merial LLC, 818 F.3d 1369, 1376, 118 USPQ2d 1541, 1546 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (eligibility "cannot be furnished by the unpatentable law of nature (or natural phenomenon or abstract idea) itself."). For a claim reciting a judicial exception to be eligible, the additional elements (if any) in the claim must "transform the nature of the claim" into a patent-eligible application of the judicial exception, Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 217, 110 USPQ2d at 1981, either at Prong Two or in Step 2B. If there are no additional elements in the claim, then it cannot be eligible. In such a case, after making the appropriate rejection (see MPEP § 2106.07 for more information on formulating a rejection for lack of eligibility), it is a best practice for the examiner to recommend an amendment, if possible, that would resolve eligibility of the claim.
Step 2b: If a judicial exception into a practical application is not recited in the claim, the Examiner must interpret if the claim recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The Examiner interprets that the claims do not amount to significantly more since the claim states merely the limitations which are considered to be a mental process.
Furthermore, the generic computer components of the memory and processor of claims 19 and 20 recited as performing generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities amount to no more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system.
Claims 2 – 10, 13, 15, and 18 depending on the independent claim/s include all the limitation of the independent claim. The Examiner finds that claims 2 – 10, 13, 15, and 18 does not state significantly more since the claim only recites “wherein the plurality of slice images are arranged in sequence, and the second slice image is adjacent to the first slice image.” in claim 2; “wherein the reference contouring information comprises a prior constraint for defining the target contouring” in claim 3; “wherein the reference contouring information comprises contouring information for at least one region of interest.” in claim 4; “wherein the reference contouring information further comprises contouring information for an associated region around the at least one region of interest.” in claim 5; “generating initial contouring information in the first slice image among the plurality of slice images”, “the initial contouring information containing an initial contouring of at least one region of interest in the first slice image”, and “obtaining, based on the initial contouring information, the reference contouring information in the first slice image.” in claim 6; “wherein the initial contouring information is determined based on manual contouring, or the initial contouring information is determined based on a preset segmentation algorithm or Artificial Intelligence” in claim 7; “modifying, by using contouring modification information determined based on the reference contouring information, an initial contouring in the second slice image to determine the target contouring.” in claim 8; “wherein the contouring modification information reflects a difference between the initial contouring and a modified contouring of the first slice image” in claim 9; “wherein the initial contouring is represented by a first contouring mask and the modified contouring is represented by a second contouring mask”, and “the contouring modification information includes a contouring modification mask determined by obtaining a difference between the first contouring mask and the second contouring mask.” in claim 10; “wherein modifying, by using contouring modification information determined based on the reference contouring information, an initial contouring in the second slice image to determine the target contouring comprises: determining modified part of contouring in the first slice image as the contouring modification information of the first slice image; and modifying corresponding part of the initial contouring in the second slice image corresponding to the modified part to determine the target contouring of the second slice image.” in claim 13; “wherein determining, based on the reference contouring information, the target contouring in the second slice image among the plurality of slice images comprises: determining, by using reference contoured contour information determined based on the reference contouring information, the target contouring.” in claim 15; and “wherein the method further comprises: performing one or more rounds of contouring operations, each round of contouring operation comprising: determining, based on contouring information in the second slice image in a current round of contouring operation, contouring information in an adjacent slice image of the second slice image”, “the contouring information comprising an initial contouring or a target contouring; determining whether a termination condition is met”, and “designating, in response to the termination condition being not met, the adjacent slice image as a second slice image in a next round of contouring operation, and performing the next round of contouring operation; or stopping, in response to the termination condition being met, the one or more rounds of contouring operations.” in claim 18.
Thus, claims 2 – 10, 13, 15, and 18 recite the same abstract idea and therefore are not drawn to the eligible subject matter as they are directed to the abstract idea without significantly more.
Therefore, the Examiner interprets that the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of pre-AIA 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) the invention was known or used by others in this country, or patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country, before the invention thereof by the applicant for a patent.
(b) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of application for patent in the United States.
Claims 1 – 8, 11, 15, 16, and 18 - 20 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Piper et al (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2019/0012567 A1, hereinafter “Piper”).
Regarding claim 1, Piper teaches an image contouring method, comprising:
obtaining a plurality of slice images (¶ 0026: The plurality of medical images may include a set of two-dimensional (2D) slices that are received, for example, from a CT scanner or other system for capturing three-dimensional (3D) medical images, such that the set of 2D slices together represent a 3D medical image.);
obtaining reference contouring information in a first slice image among the plurality of slice images (¶ 0027: In operation, the system 100 receives contour data 114 for a source image in the image database 108 and automatically propagates the source contour data 114 onto a target image.); and
determining, based on the reference contouring information, a target contouring in a second slice image among the plurality of slice images (¶ 0027: Specifically, the image deformation engine 102 receives the source image and the target image from the image database 108 and applies a deformation algorithm to the source and target images to generate deformation field data 116 that indicates how one or more objects within the image have changed from the source to the target.).
Regarding claim 2, Piper teaches the method according to claim 1.
Additionally, Piper teaches, wherein the plurality of slice images are arranged in sequence, and the second slice image is adjacent to the first slice image (¶ 0054: FIG. 7 is a flow diagram of an example method 700 of contouring a set of medical images using a set of pre-computed deformation fields. In step 702, a deformation field is calculated and stored for each two consecutive slices in the set of medical images.; Examiner’s note: Piper discloses consecutive slices, but also explicitly discloses methods for non-consecutive images which implies the methods disclosed that are not related to non-consecutive images are intended to pertain to consecutive slice images.).
Regarding claim 3, Piper teaches the method according to claim 1.
Additionally, Piper teaches wherein the reference contouring information comprises a prior constraint for defining the target contouring (¶ 0070: For instance, if the slice-to-slice deformation in the atlas patient shrinks the contour at the bottom of a structure, constraints to the deformation may indicate that the contour at the bottom of the same structure in the current patient should also be shrunk by the slice-to-slice deformation.).
Regarding claim 4, Piper teaches the method according to claim 1.
Additionally, Choi teaches wherein the reference contouring information comprises contouring information for at least one region of interest (¶ 0027: Specifically, the image deformation engine 102 receives the source image and the target image from the image database 108 and applies a deformation algorithm to the source and target images to generate deformation field data 116 that indicates how one or more objects within the image (emphasis added) have changed from the source to the target.).
Regarding claim 5, Piper teaches the method according to claim 4.
Additionally, Piper teaches wherein the reference contouring information further comprises contouring information for an associated region around the at least one region of interest (Figures 8 and 9; ¶ 0057: A comparison of FIGS. 8 and 9 shows that changes in the patient's anatomy from the image slice shown in FIG. 8 to the image slice shown in FIG. 9 are reflected in target contours 900 shown in FIG. 9.; Examiner’s note: The contoured areas in figures 8 and 9 shows the contour outside of the area that is explicitly the anatomical body within the region of interest. This is understood to mean that the excess area of figure 8’s contours affects the contours of figure 9.).
Regarding claim 6, Piper teaches the method according to claim 1.
Additionally, Choi teaches wherein obtaining the reference contouring information in the first slice image among the plurality of slice images comprises:
generating initial contouring information in the first slice image among the plurality of slice images (Figure 8; ¶ 0057: FIG. 8 illustrates an example of a source image that has been manually contoured to include contours 800 that identify portions of the patient's left and right femur, bladder, rectum and seminal vesicles..);
the initial contouring information containing an initial contouring of at least one region of interest in the first slice image (Figure 8 ref. no. 800; ¶ 0057: FIG. 8 illustrates an example of a source image that has been manually contoured to include contours 800 that identify portions of the patient's left and right femur, bladder, rectum and seminal vesicles..);
obtaining, based on the initial contouring information, the reference contouring information in the first slice image (¶ 0027: Specifically, the image deformation engine 102 receives the source image and the target image from the image database 108 and applies a deformation algorithm to the source and target images to generate deformation field data 116 that indicates how one or more objects within the image have changed from the source to the target.; ¶ 0057: A comparison of FIGS. 8 and 9 shows that changes in the patient's anatomy from the image slice shown in FIG. 8 to the image slice shown in FIG. 9 are reflected in target contours 900 shown in FIG. 9.).
Regarding claim 7, Piper teaches the method according to claim 6.
Additionally, Piper teaches wherein the initial contouring information is determined based on manual contouring, or the initial contouring information is determined based on a preset segmentation algorithm or Artificial Intelligence (AI) (¶ 0057: FIG. 8 illustrates an example of a source image that has been manually contoured to include contours 800 that identify portions of the patient's left and right femur, bladder, rectum and seminal vesicles.).
Regarding claim 8, Piper teaches the method according to claim 1.
Additionally, Piper teaches wherein determining, based on the reference contouring information, the target contouring in the second slice image among the plurality of slice images comprises:
modifying, by using contouring modification information determined based on the reference contouring information, an initial contouring in the second slice image to determine the target contouring (¶ 0027: Specifically, the image deformation engine 102 receives the source image and the target image from the image database 108 and applies a deformation algorithm to the source and target images to generate deformation field data 116 that indicates how one or more objects within the image have changed from the source to the target. The contour transformation engine 104 then applies the deformation field data 116 to the source contour data 114 to create target contour data 118. The target contour data 118 is then stored in the contour database 110 and may be overlaid onto the target image by the image rendering engine 106.; ¶ 0041: In addition, the manual contouring software 302 may also be used to manually edit one or more of the automatically generated target contours 314. For instance, if the user is not satisfied with the automatically generated target contour 314, then the contour may be manually modified using the manual contouring software 302, and the manually-edited target contour data may then be stored as part of the contour set in the contour database 316.).
Regarding claim 11, Piper teaches the method according to claim 8.
Additionally, Piper teaches wherein modifying, by using the contouring modification information determined based on the reference contouring information, the initial contouring in the second slice image comprises:
registering the first slice image with the second slice image to determine a deformation field between the first slice image and the second slice image (¶ 0027: Specifically, the image deformation engine 102 receives the source image and the target image from the image database 108 and applies a deformation algorithm to the source and target images to generate deformation field data 116 that indicates how one or more objects within the image have changed from the source to the target.); and
modifying, based on the deformation field and the contouring modification information, the initial contouring (¶ 0027: The contour transformation engine 104 then applies the deformation field data 116 to the source contour data 114 to create target contour data 118. The target contour data 118 is then stored in the contour database 110 and may be overlaid onto the target image by the image rendering engine 106.; ¶ 0044: Otherwise, if the user chooses to modify the automatically generated target contour, then the contour is manually edited at step 414 before the method proceeds to step 412. The dotted line between steps 414 and 404 signifies that if a target contour is manually edited, then during the next iteration of the contouring method (if any), the manually edited contour may be used as the source contour for the next target image. Examiner’s note: In view of the objection of claim 11 above, examiner is interpreting “the initial contouring” to be the initial contouring in the second image slice as claimed in claim 8.).
Regarding claim 15, Piper teaches the method according to claim 1.
Additionally, Piper teaches wherein determining, based on the reference contouring information, the target contouring in the second slice image among the plurality of slice images comprises:
determining, by using reference contoured contour information determined based on the reference contouring information, the target contouring (¶ 0044: Otherwise, if the user chooses to modify the automatically generated target contour, then the contour is manually edited at step 414 before the method proceeds to step 412. The dotted line between steps 414 and 404 signifies that if a target contour is manually edited, then during the next iteration of the contouring method (if any), the manually edited contour may be used as the source contour for the next target image.; Examiner’s note: As there is no indication to what “reference contoured contour information” is intended to be in this or any other claim, the examiner understands that if the user modifies a contour which is then used to determine the contour of the next slice, this is new contour information which is used as the reference contour information to determine the target contour.).
Regarding claim 16, Piper teaches the method according to claim 15 (Examiner’s note: In view of the objection above, the examiner is examining this claim as if it depended from claim 15 rather than 13.).
Additionally, Piper teaches wherein determining, by using the reference contoured contour information determined based on the reference contouring information, the target contouring comprises:
registering the first slice image with the second slice image to determine a deformation field between the first slice image and the second slice image (¶ 0027: Specifically, the image deformation engine 102 receives the source image and the target image from the image database 108 and applies a deformation algorithm to the source and target images to generate deformation field data 116 that indicates how one or more objects within the image have changed from the source to the target.; ¶ 0057: A comparison of FIGS. 8 and 9 shows that changes in the patient's anatomy from the image slice shown in FIG. 8 to the image slice shown in FIG. 9 are reflected in target contours 900 shown in FIG. 9.); and
determining, based on the deformation field and the reference contoured contour information, the target contouring (¶ 0044: Otherwise, if the user chooses to modify the automatically generated target contour, then the contour is manually edited at step 414 before the method proceeds to step 412. The dotted line between steps 414 and 404 signifies that if a target contour is manually edited, then during the next iteration of the contouring method (if any), the manually edited contour may be used as the source contour for the next target image (emphasis added).; Examiner’s note: As there is no indication to what “reference contoured contour information” is intended to be in this or any other claim, the examiner understands that if the user modifies a contour which is then used to determine the contour of the next slice, this is new contour information which is used as the reference contour information to determine the target contour. Additionally, as the manually edited contour is one which is edited based on both the deformation field and a user manually adjusting the contour, it is understood to generate a target contouring using both the deformation field and the reference contoured contour information.).
Regarding claim 18, Piper teaches the method according to claim 1.
Additionally, Piper teaches wherein the method further comprises:
performing one or more rounds of contouring operations (Figure 4; ¶ 0043: FIG. 4 is a flow diagram of another example method 400 for contouring a set of medical images.), each round of contouring operation comprising:
determining, based on contouring information in the second slice image in a current round of contouring operation, contouring information in an adjacent slice image of the second slice image (¶ 0045: When the method returns to step 404, the previous target image and contour data (automatic or manually-edited) may be used as the source image and source contour data for automatically contouring the next identified target image.);
the contouring information comprising an initial contouring or a target contouring (¶ 0043: Then, in step 404, a target image is identified for contouring based on the source image and source contour.);
determining whether a termination condition is met (¶ 0045: This decision may, for example, be based on input from a user or may be automatically determined by comparing the generated contour data with the set of stored image slices. If the contouring is complete, then the method proceeds to step 416 at which point a set of contoured images has been generated.); and
designating, in response to the termination condition being not met, the adjacent slice image as a second slice image in a next round of contouring operation, and performing the next round of contouring operation (¶ 0045: When the method returns to step 404, the previous target image and contour data (automatic or manually-edited) may be used as the source image and source contour data for automatically contouring the next identified target image.); or
stopping, in response to the termination condition being met, the one or more rounds of contouring operations (¶ 0045: This decision may, for example, be based on input from a user or may be automatically determined by comparing the generated contour data with the set of stored image slices. If the contouring is complete, then the method proceeds to step 416 at which point a set of contoured images has been generated.).
The rejection of method claim 1 above applies mutatis mutandis to the corresponding limitations of device claim 19 and manufacture claim 20 while noting that the rejection above cites to both device and manufacture disclosures.
For the manufacture limitations of claim 19 see Piper’s teaching on:
A storage device and a processing device, the storage device being stored with computer instructions, which, when executed by the processing device (¶ 0025: It should be understood that the image deformation engine, contour transformation engine and image rendering engine, as described herein, may be implemented by software instructions executing on one or more processing devices.), performs steps to…
For the manufacture limitations of claim 20 see Piper’s teaching on:
A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions therein, wherein the instructions, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to implement steps to (Claim 19: a non-transitory, computer-readable storage medium having stored thereon computer-executable instructions, the computer-executable instructions comprising…)…
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 9 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Piper et al (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2019/0012567 A1, hereinafter “Piper”) in view of Wang et al (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2013/0182935 A1, hereinafter “Wang”).
Regarding claim 9, Piper teaches the method according to claim 8.
Additionally, Piper teaches (¶ 0027: The contour transformation engine 104 then applies the deformation field data 116 to the source contour data 114 to create target contour data 118. The target contour data 118 is then stored in the contour database 110 and may be overlaid onto the target image by the image rendering engine 106.; ¶ 0044: Otherwise, if the user chooses to modify the automatically generated target contour, then the contour is manually edited at step 414 before the method proceeds to step 412. The dotted line between steps 414 and 404 signifies that if a target contour is manually edited, then during the next iteration of the contouring method (if any), the manually edited contour may be used as the source contour for the next target image.; Examiner’s note: As there is no indication to what “reference contoured contour information” is intended to be in this or any other claim, the examiner understands that if the user modifies a contour which is then used to determine the contour of the next slice, this is new contour information which is used as the reference contour information to determine the target contour.; Examiner’s note: In view of the objection of claim 9 above, examiner is interpreting “the initial contouring” to be the initial contouring in the second image slice as claimed in claim 8.).
Piper does not explicitly teach wherein the contouring modification information reflects a difference between the initial contouring and a modified contouring of the first slice image.
However, Wang does teach wherein the contouring modification information reflects a difference between the initial contouring and a modified contouring of the first slice image (¶ 0078: In step S130, a similarity between the first contour of the moving object in the predetermined image slice and the initial contour of the moving object in the predetermined image slice is calculated as a first similarity, and a similarity between the second contour of the moving object in the predetermined image slice and the initial contour of the moving object in the predetermined image slice is calculated as a second similarity.).
Wang is considered to be analogous art as it pertains to contour tracking in biomedical images. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the system for contouring a set of medical images (as taught by Piper) and the method for tracking contour of moving objects (as taught by Wang) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. The motivation for this combination of references would be Wang is able to predict, using interpolation, areas where a contour is missing across slice images where a contour is not determined so as to eliminate the influence caused by lower similarity between the first and last image slices and to improve accuracy of the contour tracking (See ¶ 0090).
This motivation for the combination of Piper and Wang is supported by KSR exemplary rationale (G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention. MPEP 2141 (III).
Regarding claim 12, Piper teaches the method according to claim 11.
Additionally, Piper teaches wherein the registering the first slice image with the second slice image to determine a deformation field between the first slice image and the second slice image includes:
determining the deformation field between the first slice image and the second slice image based on the (¶ 0027: Specifically, the image deformation engine 102 receives the source image and the target image from the image database 108 and applies a deformation algorithm to the source and target images to generate deformation field data 116 that indicates how one or more objects within the image have changed from the source to the target.).
Additionally, Wang teaches the initial contouring of the second slice image and the initial contouring or a modified contouring of the first image slice (¶ 0073: In performing the contour tracking, an initial contour of the moving object in a predetermined image slice of the image slice time series is taken as a starting contour, and the last image slice is taken as the previous image slice of a first image slice in the first time direction.).
Wang is considered to be analogous art as it pertains to contour tracking in biomedical images. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the system for contouring a set of medical images (as taught by Piper) and the method for tracking contour of moving objects (as taught by Wang) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. The motivation for this combination of references would be Wang is able to predict, using interpolation, areas where a contour is missing across slice images where a contour is not determined so as to eliminate the influence caused by lower similarity between the first and last image slices and to improve accuracy of the contour tracking (See ¶ 0090).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 10 would be allowable over the prior art if the interceding claim objections and 101 rejections were overcome, and the claims were rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 13, 14, and 17 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.
Choi et al (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2022/0198674 A1) teaches a system for contouring medical slice images comprising using a contour of a slice image to contour regions of interest within adjacent slice images.
Londono et al (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2025/0086805 A1) teaches a method for generating segmentation contours around regions of interest across a plurality of biomedical images.
Bai et al (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2024/0428929 A1) teaches a system for contouring an anatomical structure within a medical image and inputting the contoured image into a neural network to further refine the contour of the anatomical region.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW JONES whose telephone number is (703)756-4573. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00-5:00 EST, off Every Other Friday.
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, Matthew 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.
/ANDREW B. JONES/Examiner, Art Unit 2667 /MATTHEW C BELLA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2667
Prosecution Insights