DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: image acquisition unit in claim 16.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 5, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dehghan Marvast (20180247435) in view of Willcut (US20180326223).
Regarding claim 1, Dehghan Marvast teaches a computer implemented method, comprising:
acquiring a plurality of subsets of tomographic images of an object, wherein the plurality of subsets respectively correspond to different positions in a scanning axial direction (para. [0003], In 4D CT, the patient is over sampled along his/her long axis at every subject support position of interest. Each CT slice is then correlated with a breathing phase of the respiratory cycle; para. [0028]), and wherein each of the plurality of subsets comprises a plurality of tomographic images, at different time points of a specific scanning time period (para. [0003], In 4D CT, the patient is over sampled along his/her long axis at every subject support position of interest. Each CT slice is then correlated with a breathing phase of the respiratory cycle; para. [0028], Each image corresponds to a respiratory phase/amplitude), obtained by scanning a movable portion of the object at a specific position in the scanning axial direction (para. [0003], [0028]).
Dehghan Marvast fails to teach segmenting each of the plurality of tomographic images in one of the plurality of subsets to separately obtain a region of interest in each tomographic image; and
generating a region of interest contour of the one subset based on the regions of interest of the plurality of tomographic images in the one subset.
However Willcut teaches segmenting each of a plurality of tomographic images in one of a plurality of subsets (para. [0069], To determine the variations in shape of tumor 200, imaging of tumor 200 at different time points may be taken. For example, during treatment planning, multiple images of tumor 200 may be captured; para. [0077], Accordingly, a GTV may be drawn around the tumor in each of the plurality of images, and the images may be co-registered around the region of interest) to separately obtain a region of interest in each tomographic image (para. [0079], a target volume may be contoured for each 3D volume in each image. The union of the plurality of target volumes in space may then be used to create a region of interest); and
generating a region of interest contour of the one subset based on the regions of interest of the plurality of tomographic images in the one subset (fig. 7, para. [0009], wherein each of the plurality of images was taken at a different time point, and contouring a three-dimensional target volume containing the target region in at least one of the plurality of images; para. [0079], a target volume may be contoured for each 3D volume in each image. The union of the plurality of target volumes in space may then be used to create a region of interest).
Therefore taking the combined teachings of Dehghan Marvast and Willcut as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to incorporate the steps of Willcut into the method of Dehghan Marvast. The motivation to combine Willcut and Dehghan Marvast would be to reduce or avoid damage to tissue nearby a therapy locus (para. [0064] of Willcut).
Regarding claim 5, the modified method of Dehghan Marvast teaches a method wherein the region of interest contour (para. [0055] of Willcut) is generated by superimposing contours of the regions of interest of all tomographic images in the same subset (para. [0070] of Willcut), such that pixels within the regions of interest of all the tomographic images in the same subset are located within the region of interest contour (para. [0072] of Willcut), and any pixel within the region of interest contour is located within the region of interest of at least one of all the tomographic images (para. [0076], [0079 of Willcut).
Regarding claim 16, Dehghan Marvast teaches a treatment planning apparatus, comprising:
an image acquisition unit (fig. 4), configured to acquire a plurality of subsets of tomographic images of an object (para. [0003], In 4D CT, the patient is over sampled along his/her long axis at every subject support position of interest. Each CT slice is then correlated with a breathing phase of the respiratory cycle; para. [0028])
a display, configured to present a region (para. [0028]).
Dehghan Marvast fails to teach wherein the region of interest contour is generated by superimposing contours of regions of interest obtained by segmentation of all tomographic images in the one subset, such that pixels within the regions of interest of all the tomographic images in the one subset are located within the region of interest contour, and any pixel within the region of interest contour is located within the region of interest of at least one of all the tomographic images; and
a display, configured to present the region of interest contour corresponding to the one subset.
However Willcut teaches wherein the region of interest contour is generated by superimposing contours of regions of interest obtained by segmentation of all tomographic images in the one subset (fig. 7; para. [0070], Co-registration is the process of finding the mathematical transformation that aligns multiple different radiographic images. The outer-most perimeter of the overlapped shapes defines a target region that accounts for changes in shape of tumor during treatment; para. [0079]), such that pixels within the regions of interest of all the tomographic images in the one subset are located within the region of interest contour (para. [0074], [0079]), and any pixel within the region of interest contour is located within the region of interest of at least one of all the tomographic images (para. [0070], [0079]); and
a display, configured to present the region of interest contour corresponding to the one subset (para. [0057]).
Therefore taking the combined teachings of Dehghan Marvast and Willcut as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to incorporate the steps of Willcut into the method of Dehghan Marvast. The motivation to combine Willcut and Dehghan Marvast would be to reduce or avoid damage to tissue nearby a therapy locus (para. [0064] of Willcut).
Claim(s) 2, 10, 13, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dehghan Marvast (20180247435) and Willcut (US20180326223) in view of Gatti (US20190333222).
Regarding claim 2, the modified method of Dehghan Marvast fails to teach a method further comprising:
generating a probability distribution of pixels within a range of the region of interest contour of the one subset, wherein the probability distribution is a set of probabilities that respective pixels in the region of interest contour belong to regions of interest.
However Gatti teaches generating a probability distribution of pixels within a range of the region of interest contour of the one subset (para. [0086], [0111]), wherein the probability distribution is a set of probabilities (para. [0091]) that respective pixels in the region of interest contour belong to regions of interest (para. [0095], [0098]).
Therefore taking the combined teachings of Dehghan Marvast and Willcut with Gatti as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to incorporate the steps of Gatti into the method of Dehghan Marvast and Willcut. The motivation to combine Gatti, Willcut and Dehghan Marvast would be to provide the advantage of including full resolution pixel data and providing global context about image structure from the included probability maps (para. [0091] of Gatti).
Regarding claim 10, the modified method of Dehghan Marvast teaches further comprising:
outputting the region of interest contour (para. [0057] of Willcut) and the probability distribution (para. [0111] of Gatti) together with the one subset (para. [0111] of Gatti) to a treatment planning apparatus (para. [0028] of Dehghan Marvast; para. [0057] of Willcut).
Regarding claim 13, the claim recites similar subject matter as claims 1 and 2 and is rejected for the same reasons as stated above.
Regarding claim 18, the claim recites similar subject matter as claims 1 and 10 and is rejected for the same reasons as stated above. Displaying is interpreted to be the same as outputting.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dehghan Marvast (20180247435), Willcut (US20180326223) and Gatti (US20190333222) in view of Shea et al (US20130035588).
Regarding claim 3, the modified method of Dehghan Marvast fails to teach a method wherein the probability distribution of the region of interest contour of the one subset is calculated using the one subset as a base.
However Shea teaches wherein a probability distribution (par. [0057]-[0058]) of the region of interest contour of a one subset (para. [0037]) is calculated using the one subset as a base (par. [0057]-[0058]).
Therefore taking the combined teachings of Dehghan Marvast, Gatti and Willcut with Shea as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to incorporate the steps of Shea into the method of Dehghan Marvast, Gatti and Willcut. The motivation to combine Shea, Gatti, Willcut and Dehghan Marvast would be to improve local tumor control as well as reduce radiation toxicity to adjacent normal tissues at risk (para. [0022] of Shea).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dehghan Marvast (20180247435), Willcut (US20180326223) and Gatti (US20190333222) in view of Fidrich et al (US20100128946).
Regarding claim 4, the modified method of Dehghan Marvast fails to teach a method wherein the probability distribution of the region of interest contour of the one subset is calculated using the plurality of subsets as a base.
However Fidrich teaches wherein a probability distribution of a region of interest contour of the one subset is calculated using the plurality of subsets as a base (para. [0084]-[0085], [0096]).
Therefore taking the combined teachings of Dehghan Marvast, Gatti and Willcut with Fidrich as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to incorporate the steps of Fidrich into the method of Dehghan Marvast, Gatti and Willcut. The motivation to combine Fidrich, Gatti, Willcut and Dehghan Marvast would be to accurately, rapidly, efficiently and robustly segment anatomical data from any of a variety of imaging tools (para. [0001] of Fidrich).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dehghan Marvast (20180247435) and Willcut (US20180326223) in view of Laaksonen et al (US20210065360).
Regarding claim 6, the modified method of Dehghan Marvast fails to teach a method wherein the region of interest is obtained by automatic segmentation via deep learning.
However Laaksonen teaches wherein a region of interest is obtained by automatic segmentation via deep learning (para. [0062]).
Therefore taking the combined teachings of Dehghan Marvast and Willcut with Laaksonen as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to incorporate the steps of Laaksonen into the method of Dehghan Marvast and Willcut. The motivation to combine Laaksonen, Willcut and Dehghan Marvast would be to produce improved contours of anatomical structures (para. [0009] of Laaksonen).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dehghan Marvast (20180247435) and Willcut (US20180326223) in view of Boroczky et al (US20110142301).
Regarding claim 7, the modified method of Dehghan Marvast fails to teach a method further comprising:
defining, via a user input, a position range in which the region of interest is located.
However Boroczky teaches defining, via a user input (para. [0051]), a position range in which the region of interest is located (para. [0048]).
Therefore taking the combined teachings of Dehghan Marvast and Willcut with Boroczky as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to incorporate the steps of Boroczky into the method of Dehghan Marvast and Willcut. The motivation to combine Boroczky, Willcut and Dehghan Marvast would be to achieve high specificity and sensitivity, and characterize lesions in a plurality of dimensions to more accurately distinguish benign lesions from malignant lesions (para. [0028] of Boroczky).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dehghan Marvast (20180247435) and Willcut (US20180326223) in view of Johnston et al (US20120177271).
Regarding claim 8, the modified method of Dehghan Marvast fails to teach a method wherein the specific scanning time period of each of the subsets exceeds one respiratory cycle of the object.
However Johnston teaches wherein a specific scanning time period of each of the subsets exceeds one respiratory cycle of the object (para. [0008], [0026]).
Therefore taking the combined teachings of Dehghan Marvast and Willcut with Johnston as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to incorporate the steps of Johnston into the method of Dehghan Marvast and Willcut. The motivation to combine Johnston, Willcut and Dehghan Marvast would be to achieve high specificity and sensitivity, and characterize lesions in a plurality of dimensions to reduce reconstruction artifacts (para. [0015] of Johnston).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dehghan Marvast (20180247435) and Willcut (US20180326223) in view of Song et al (US20200294285).
Regarding claim 9, the modified method of Dehghan Marvast fails to teach a method wherein the specific scanning time period of at least one of the plurality of subsets is different from those of the other subsets.
However Song teaches wherein a specific scanning time period of at least one of the plurality of subsets is different from those of the other subsets (para. [0028], [0034]).
Therefore taking the combined teachings of Dehghan Marvast and Willcut with Song as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to incorporate the steps of Song into the method of Dehghan Marvast and Willcut. The motivation to combine Song, Willcut and Dehghan Marvast would be to reconstruct images while acquisition of further frames is ongoing, thereby allowing doctors to begin image review more quickly. (para. [0011] of Song).
Claim(s) 11 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dehghan Marvast (20180247435), Willcut (US20180326223) and Gatti (US20190333222) in view of Dormer et al (US20180256041).
Regarding claim 11, the modified method of Dehghan Marvast teaches a method further comprising displaying (para. [0028] of Dehghan Marvast; para. [0057] of Willcut) the region of interest contour (para. [0057] of Willcut) in the tomographic images of the one subset (para. [0111] of Gatti).
The modified method of Dehghan Marvast fails to teach wherein the region of interest contour has transparency. However Dormer teaches wherein a region of interest contour has transparency (para. [0193]).
Therefore taking the combined teachings of Dehghan Marvast, Willcut and Gatti with Dormer as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to incorporate the steps of Dormer into the method of Dehghan Marvast, Gatti and Willcut. The motivation to combine Gatti, Dormer, Willcut and Dehghan Marvast would be to allow automated or even autonomous flow quantification, identifying abnormalities and/or verifying results (para. [0036] of Dormer).
Regarding claim 14, the claim recites similar subject matter as claim 11 and is rejected for the same reasons as stated above.
Claim(s) 12, 15, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dehghan Marvast (20180247435), Willcut (US20180326223) and Gatti (US20190333222) in view of Ranjan (US20150043797).
Regarding claim 12, the modified method of Dehghan Marvast fails to teach a method wherein the region of interest contour of the one subset is presented in a manner corresponding to the probability distribution.
However Ranjan teaches wherein a region of interest contour of one subset is presented in a manner corresponding to a probability distribution (para. [0037]).
Therefore taking the combined teachings of Dehghan Marvast, Willcut and Gatti with Ranjan as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to incorporate the steps of Ranjan into the method of Dehghan Marvast, Gatti and Willcut. The motivation to combine Gatti, Ranjan, Willcut and Dehghan Marvast would be to provide experts additional information to aid in segmentation of areas of uncertainty (para. [0012] of Ranjan).
Regarding claim 15, the claim recites similar subject matter as claim 12 and is rejected for the same reasons as stated above.
Regarding claim 19, the claim recites similar subject matter as claim 12 and is rejected for the same reasons as stated above.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dehghan Marvast (20180247435), Willcut (US20180326223) in view of Dormer et al (US20180256041).
Regarding claim 17, the modified apparatus of Dehghan Marvast teaches a method further comprising displaying (para. [0028] of Dehghan Marvast; para. [0057] of Willcut) the region of interest contour (para. [0057] of Willcut) in the tomographic images of the one subset (para. [0070], [0079] of Willcut).
The modified apparatus of Dehghan Marvast fails to teach wherein the region of interest contour has transparency. However Dormer teaches wherein a region of interest contour has transparency (para. [0193]).
Therefore taking the combined teachings of Dehghan Marvast and Willcut with Dormer as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to incorporate the features of Dormer into the apparatus of Dehghan Marvast and Willcut. The motivation to combine Dormer, Willcut and Dehghan Marvast would be to allow automated or even autonomous flow quantification, identifying abnormalities and/or verifying results (para. [0036] of Dormer).
Related Art
Yang et al (US20180260957) – see fig. 1, para. [0022]-[0024]
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LEON VIET Q NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-1185. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 11AM-7PM.
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, Gregory Morse can be reached at 571-272-3838. 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.
/LEON VIET Q NGUYEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2663
Prosecution Insights