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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,165,261 in view of Wiemker et al. US 2014/0298270. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the instant application are present or obvious from the limitations of the more detailed patented application as shown in the mapping below.
Regarding claim 1, ‘261 discloses a system, comprising (claim 1 line 1): a memory that stores executable components (claim 1 line 2); and a processor, operatively coupled to the memory, that executes the executable components, the executable components comprising (claim 1 lines 3-5): a user interface component configured to receive, via interaction with one or more display interfaces, annotation input that defines a manual edit to a segmentation of a two-dimensional (2D) image, wherein the 2D image is one of a set of 2D images of a three-dimensional (3D) scan of a subject (claim 1 lines 6-11); a 2D annotation component configured to apply the manual edit to the segmentation to yield an edited segmentation for the 2D image (claim 1 lines 12-14),
Wiemkler discloses editing segmentation for a 2D image comprising one or more dimensions and a position of a two dimensional shape encompassing one or more segmentation lines modified by the manual edit (see paragraph 0055 which discloses a 2D segmentation that is displayed on a graphical user interface [figure 2] allows the user to specify position data of an initial slice using a segmentation line, see paragraph 0012).
‘261 and Wiemkler are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor of interacting with a 2D slice to define changes across a 3D volume image.
Before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to modify ‘261 with the teaching of Wiemkler to show segmentation lines modified by the manual edit. The motivation would be to allow the user to visualize better the changes being made to the image.
Claims 2-20 are similarly mapped with claims 1-20 of ‘261.
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 1-13 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "interpolating the edited 3D segmentation" in lines 15-16. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 2-13 are rejected due to their dependency on claim 1.
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 1-3, 8-15, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wiemker et al. US 2014/0298270 (hereinafter “Wiemker”).
Regarding claim 1, Wiemker discloses a system, comprising: a memory that stores executable components; and a processor, operatively coupled to the memory, that executes the executable components (see paragraph 0084, a computer unit adapted to perform the steps of the method)
PNG
media_image1.png
197
422
media_image1.png
Greyscale
the executable components comprising: a user interface component configured to receive, via interaction with one or more display interfaces, annotation input that defines a manual edit to a segmentation of a two-dimensional (2D) image, wherein the 2D image is one of a set of 2D images of a three-dimensional (3D) scan of a subject (graphical user interface 155 is used to allow a user to initiate a 2D segmentation of an image that forms part of the slices forming a 3D volume, see paragraph 0047 and 0055)
PNG
media_image2.png
328
414
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
172
417
media_image3.png
Greyscale
; a 2D annotation component configured to apply the manual edit to the segmentation to yield an edited segmentation for the 2D image, wherein the edited segmentation for the 2D image comprises one or more dimensions and a position of a two-dimensional shape encompassing one or more segmentation lines modified by the manual edit (see paragraph 0055, a graphical rendering of the calculated 2D segmentation is then displayed which comprises dimensions and positions of a two-dimensional shape with a segmentation line 108 modified by the manual edit, see figure 2)
PNG
media_image4.png
312
419
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
430
548
media_image5.png
Greyscale
; a 3D interpolation component configured to modify an initial segmentation of a non-edited image, of the set of 2D images, by interpolating the edited 3D segmentation to the non-edited image to yield an updated segmentation for the non-edited image (see paragraph 0056 upon confirming the 2D segmentation the 3D volume set is generated by the 3D segmenter based on the 2D segmentation, this is interpreted by the Examiner as an interpolation component)
PNG
media_image6.png
354
409
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Wiemker discloses wherein the 3D interpolation component is configured to: maintain contours of the initial segmentation for portions of the updated 3D segmentation that do not satisfy a relationship criterion relative to an area corresponding to the manual edit, and modify contours, based on the interpolating, for portions of the updated segmentation that satisfy the relationship criterion relative to the area corresponding to the manual edit (see paragraphs 0072-0074, a comparator establishes a deviation between currently displayed 3D segmentation solution and a candidate segmentation which is compared to a threshold deviation to allow the user to be aware of ambiguous regions and thus update the segmentation based on the deviating chunks, here the comparator which generates deviation values is interpreted by the Examiner as equivalent to the relationship criterion of the claim language, thus the parts that do not deviate from the threshold deviation are maintained and parts that deviate are modified)
PNG
media_image7.png
1261
400
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, Wiemker discloses automatically propagate the annotation input to additional 2D images from the set of 2D images of the three-dimensional (3D) scan of the subject (see paragraph 0056, the 3D segmentation is generated across the 3D dataset and the user can then select a new slice which has been updated, thus the annotation of the 2D image is propagated to the additional images)
PNG
media_image8.png
308
347
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 8, wherein the relationship criterion is a distance criterion, and the 3D interpolation component is configured to: maintain contours of the initial segmentation for portions of the updated 3D segmentation that are located outside a defined distance from the area corresponding to the manual edit, and modify contours, based on the interpolating, for portions of the updated segmentation that are located within the defined distance (see paragraph 0073 above, the deviating chunk may be chosen to be the one furthest away from the chunks making up the currently displayed 3D segmentation, thus this is based on a distance criterion).
Regarding claim 9, the relationship criterion is a connectivity criterion, and the 3D interpolation component is configured to: maintain contours of the initial segmentation for portions of the updated 3D segmentation that are not connected to the area corresponding to the manual edit via a common contour, and modify contours, based on the interpolating, for portions of the updated segmentation that are connected to the area corresponding to the manual edit via a common contour (see paragraph 0072, the contours of the slices are identified and used to calculate the 3D segmentations).
Regarding claim 10, the 3D interpolation component is configured to generate a provisional segmentation for the non-edited image based on a global interpolation of the edited segmentation, and revert portions of the provisional segmentation that do not satisfy the relationship criterion to their corresponding contours of the initial segmentation (see paragraph 0074, the user can strike out from the 2D segmentation of the slice showing ambiguity and then the display reverts to the previously shown 3D segmentation).
Claim 11 is similarly analyzed and rejected to claim 10.
Regarding claim 12, the 3D interpolation component is configured to translate the area corresponding to the manual edit from the 2D image to the non-edited image to yield a projected area, and determine whether the portions of the updated segmentation are located outside or within the defined distance from the projected area (see paragraph 0073 above, the deviating chunk may be chosen to be the one furthest away from the chunks making up the currently displayed 3D segmentation, thus this is based on a distance criterion).
Regarding claim 13, the 3D interpolation component is further configured to determine whether to maintain contours of the initial segmentation or to maintain interpolated contours for respective portions of the updated segmentation based on a digital model of the subject (see paragraph 0074).
Regarding claim 14, Wiemker discloses a method, comprising: receiving, by a system comprising a processor via interaction with one or more display interfaces, annotation input that defines a manual edit to a segmentation of a two-dimensional (2D) image, wherein the 2D image is one of a set of 2D images of a three-dimensional (3D) scan of a subject (graphical user interface 155 is used to allow a user to initiate a 2D segmentation of an image that forms part of the slices forming a 3D volume, see paragraph 0047 and 0055); applying, by the system, the manual edit to the segmentation to yield an edited segmentation for the 2D image, wherein the edited segmentation for the 2D image comprises one or more dimensions and a position of a two-dimensional shape encompassing one or more segmentation lines modified by the manual edit (see paragraph 0055, a graphical rendering of the calculated 2D segmentation is then displayed which comprises dimensions and positions of a two-dimensional shape with a segmentation line 108 modified by the manual edit, see figure 2); and modifying, by the system, an initial segmentation of a non-edited image, of the set of 2D images, by interpolating the edited segmentation to the non-edited image to yield an updated 3D segmentation for the non-edited image (see paragraph 0056 upon confirming the 2D segmentation the 3D volume set is generated by the 3D segmenter based on the 2D segmentation, this is interpreted by the Examiner as an interpolation component)
, wherein the modifying comprises: in response to determining that a first portion of the updated segmentation does not satisfy a relationship criterion relative to an area corresponding to the manual edit, maintaining a contour of the initial segmentation for the first portion, and in response to determining that a second portion of the updated segmentation satisfies the relationship criterion, modifying the second portion in accordance with the interpolating (see paragraphs 0072-0074, a comparator establishes a deviation between currently displayed 3D segmentation solution and a candidate segmentation which is compared to a threshold deviation to allow the user to be aware of ambiguous regions and thus update the segmentation based on the deviating chunks, here the comparator which generates deviation values is interpreted by the Examiner as equivalent to the relationship criterion of the claim language, thus the parts that do not deviate from the threshold deviation are maintained and parts that deviate are modified).
Claim 15 is similarly analyzed to claim 3.
Claim 19 is similarly analyzed to claim 14.
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 4, 16, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wiemker in view of Pandolfino et al. US 2022/0405923 (hereinafter “Pandolfino”).
Regarding claim 4, as discussed above, Wiemker discloses the limitations of claim 1.
Wiemker does not explicitly disclose a neural network generates a set of contours for one or more areas of interest identified from the set of 2D image, wherein the annotation input modifies the set of contours from the neural network, however it is well known to use neural networks to generate contour data of an image as shown by Pandolfino.
Pandolfino discloses using a convolutional neural network to generate the outline [contour] of the bolus transported through the esophagus (see paragraph 0081).
Wiemker and Pandolfino are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor of segmenting medical images.
Before the effective filing date it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Wiemker and Pandolfino to use the processing power of a neural network to generate the contours of the input images. The motivation would be to assist the user in determining the contours of the medical imaging when editing.
Claim 16 is similarly analyzed to claim 4.
Claim 20 is similarly analyzed to claim 4.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 5-7, 17-18 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. Please see the attached 892 notice of references cited.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN B STREGE whose telephone number is (571)272-7457. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5 (PST).
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, Chan Park can be reached at (571)272-7409. 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.
/JOHN B STREGE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2669
Prosecution Insights