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
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The IDS filed November 6, 2024, is blank. Please update the IDS.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 8, 10, 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2003/0210813 A1 to Oosawa in view of US 2014/0055454 A1 to Schrenkenberg.
Claim 1. Oosawa teaches An image information processing apparatus comprising: [0022] a first image forming apparatus
processing circuitry configured to acquire a structure from a medical image, [0133] shapes of the anatomical features of the objects are extracted as the landmarks from the images having been stored in the normal structure DB. FIG. 4A is an explanatory view showing an example of a chest image P1 stored in the normal structure DB, in which chest image a plurality of landmarks have been appended to outer peripheries of lung field regions.
to calculate feature quantities related to a form of the structure for each of the regions, [0133] In each of FIG. 4A, FIG. 4B, and FIG. 4C, a plurality of black points represented by M are the landmarks. The points utilized as the landmarks represent equivalent anatomical feature positions in each image. Examiner interprets the black points (landmarks) to be the feature.
[0134] Thereafter, in order for each of the images stored in the normal structure DB to be warped to the thus prepared mean shape, a calculation is made to find a shift quantity for shift of each of the landmarks in each image to the mean shape. Examiner interprets the black points (landmarks) to be the feature and the shift quantity to the be feature quantities.
and to correct the structure so that a difference in the feature quantities is reduced. [0134] Thereafter, in order for each of the images stored in the normal structure DB to be warped to the thus prepared mean shape, a calculation is made to find a shift quantity for shift of each of the landmarks in each image to the mean shape. FIG. 6 is an explanatory view showing how each of landmarks (represented by M in FIG. 6), which have been appended to outer peripheries of lung field regions in a chest image, is warped to the mean shape (represented by Ka in FIG. 6). Examiner interprets the warping to be the correcting the structure.
to set one or more lines or planes that divide the structure into a plurality of regions, FIG. 4A, FIG. 4B, and FIG. 4C [0133] a plurality of landmarks have been appended to outer peripheries of lung field regions
Oosawa fails to explicitly teach to set one or more lines or planes that divide the structure into a plurality of regions. Schreckenberg, in the field of analyzing an anatomical structure in image data, teaches [0012] If the axis corresponds to a long axis across the anatomical structure, short axis sections will automatically be chosen and will be represented., Fig. 1
Claim 2. Oosawa teaches wherein the processing circuitry is configured to acquire shape information of anatomical structure included in the medical image as the structure, [0128] each of images, … a shape of an anatomical feature having been extracted from each image, which shape is represented by landmarks, are utilized as instructor data and applied to the technique of AAM.
and set an axis serving as a reference of a left-right symmetry of the anatomical structure as one of the one or more lines or planes. Schreckenberg [0043] FIG. 1 is a schematic perspective drawing of a right ventricle, including plane of symmetry, axis and a viewing plane
[0047] FIG. 1 shows a schematic drawing of a right ventricle 1. The latter generally is nestled to the larger left ventricle thus showing a relatively complex bag-like shape… The right ventricle 1 approximately is mirror-symmetrically arranged about the plane of symmetry S
Claim 3. Oosawa teaches wherein the feature quantity is a length of the anatomical structure measured along a direction of the axis. [0136] wherein x and y represent the coordinates of each of the landmarks in each image, x' and y' represent the coordinates on the mean shape, to which each of the landmarks in each image is warped
FIG. 4A, FIG. 4B, and FIG. 4C - black points (landmarks) outlines the shape (length and width) of the lungs
Claim 8. Oosawa teaches wherein the feature quantity is an area or circumference of a closed curve. FIG. 4A, FIG. 4B, and FIG. 4C
[0133] In each of FIG. 4A, FIG. 4B, and FIG. 4C, a plurality of black points represented by M are the landmarks. The points utilized as the landmarks represent equivalent anatomical feature positions in each image. Examiner interprets the black points (landmarks) to be the feature.
[0134] Thereafter, in order for each of the images stored in the normal structure DB to be warped to the thus prepared mean shape (understood to be an area), a calculation is made to find a shift quantity for shift of each of the landmarks in each image to the mean shape. Examiner interprets the black points (landmarks) to be the feature and the shift quantity to the be feature quantities.
Claim 10. Oosawa teaches wherein the processing circuitry is configured to correct the structure by using a length, an angle, a circumference, or an area as a correction criterion. [0134] Thereafter, in order for each of the images stored in the normal structure DB to be warped to the thus prepared mean shape, a calculation is made to find a shift quantity for shift of each of the landmarks in each image to the mean shape. FIG. 6 is an explanatory view showing how each of landmarks (represented by M in FIG. 6), which have been appended to outer peripheries of lung field regions in a chest image, is warped to the mean shape (represented by Ka in FIG. 6). Examiner interprets the warping to be the correcting the structure.
FIG. 4A, FIG. 4B, and FIG. 4C - black points (landmarks) outlines the shape (length and width) of the lungs
Claim 13. Reviewed and analyzed in the same way as claim 1. See the above analysis and rationale.
Claim 14. Reviewed and analyzed in the same way as claim 1. See the above analysis and rationale.
Claim(s) 4 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2003/0210813 A1 to Oosawa in view of US 2014/0055454 A1 to Schrenkenberg and in further view of US 2011/0130653 A1 to Wang et al., hereinafter, “Wang”.
Claim 4. Oosawa fails to explicitly teach to calculate the feature quantities at each of corresponding locations with respect to the axis. Wang, in the field of analyzing an anatomical structure in medical image data, teaches wherein the processing circuitry is configured to calculate the feature quantities at each of corresponding locations with respect to the axis, Wang [0012]
Oosawa teaches and correct the structure so that the difference in the feature quantities calculated for each of the corresponding locations is reduced. Oosawa [0134] Thereafter, in order for each of the images stored in the normal structure DB to be warped to the thus prepared mean shape, a calculation is made to find a shift quantity for shift of each of the landmarks in each image to the mean shape. FIG. 6 is an explanatory view showing how each of landmarks (represented by M in FIG. 6), which have been appended to outer peripheries of lung field regions in a chest image, is warped to the mean shape (represented by Ka in FIG. 6). Examiner interprets the warping to be the correcting the structure.
Thus, before the effective filing date of the present application, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Oosawa with the teachings of Wang [0008] to increase the positional accuracy of the anatomical structure.
Claim 7. Oosawa fails to explicitly teach wherein the feature quantity is an angle formed with a base plane. Wang, in the field of analyzing an anatomical structure in medical image data, teaches wherein the feature quantity is an angle formed with a base plane or baseline obtained from a structure of a valve leaflet tip. [0051] The first feature quantity calculator 26 calculates a first feature quantity representative of a clearness of sectional shapes crossing the Z'-axes at the vertebrae 42 (see FIG. 2). The first feature quantity may be, for example, a feature quantity for extracting annular patterns around points P on the Z'-axes.
Thus, before the effective filing date of the present application, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Oosawa with the teachings of Wang [0008] to increase the positional accuracy of the anatomical structure.
Claim 9. Oosawa fails to explicitly teach to set correction locations from the structure on a basis of the lines or planes. Wang, in the field of analyzing an anatomical structure in medical image data, teaches wherein the processing circuitry is configured to set correction locations from the structure on a basis of the lines or planes, [0059] he output unit 16 may determine in advance reference positions at a plurality of locations, e.g., end points or central positions of the vertebrae 42 or the intervertebral discs 44, and may output such reference positions. Examiner interprets the reference positions to be the correction locations.
and calculate the feature quantities for the set correction locations. [0058]
Thus, before the effective filing date of the present application, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Oosawa with the teachings of Wang [0008] to increase the positional accuracy of the anatomical structure.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2003/0210813 A1 to Oosawa in view of US 2014/0055454 A1 to Schrenkenberg and in further view of US 2021/0049777 A1 to Kawai.
Claim 11. Oosawa fails to explicitly teach select a method of correcting the structure according to a reliability of a process of acquiring the structure. Kawai, in the field of feature extraction in image data, teaches wherein the processing circuitry is configured to select a method of correcting the structure according to a reliability of a process of acquiring the structure. [0094] setting a degree of reliability suppresses that a feature to be extracted from a foreground region that is not correctly extracted is greatly reflected in a feature to be determined.
Thus, before the effective filing date of the present application, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Oosawa with the teachings of Kawai [0132] it is possible to reduce inaccuracy of a feature to be derived when a foreground region is not correctly extracted.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2003/0210813 A1 to Oosawa in view of US 2014/0055454 A1 to Schrenkenberg and in further view of US 2021/0183019 A1 to Uchida et al., hereinafter, “Uchida”.
Claim 12. Oosawa fails to explicitly teach to display an image in which the structure before correction and the structure after correction are superimposed on the image. Uchida in the field of analyzing an anatomical structure in image data, teaches wherein the processing circuitry causes a display unit to display an image in which the structure before correction and the structure after correction are superimposed on the image. [0126] display method the images before and after image quality improving processing are switched and displayed, a similar effect can be obtained by displaying these images in a juxtaposed or superimposed manner.
Thus, before the effective filing date of the present application, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Oosawa with the teachings of Uchida [0125] the operator can easily view and compare the OCTA images before and after the image quality improving processing, and can easily confirm a change between the OCTA images that was caused by the image quality improving processing.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-6 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.
The innovation that makes claim 5 allowable is “correct, for each of the polylines, the structure by modifying a position of the grid point on at least one of a valve annulus side and a valve leaflet tip side among the grid points.”.
Claim 6 would be allowable because it is a dependent of claim 5.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DELOMIA L GILLIARD whose telephone number is (571)272-1681. The examiner can normally be reached 8am-5pm.
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, John Villecco can be reached at (571) 272-7319. 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.
/DELOMIA L GILLIARD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2661
Prosecution Insights