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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(b) because they are incomplete. 37 CFR 1.83(b) reads as follows:
When the invention consists of an improvement on an old machine the drawing must when possible exhibit, in one or more views, the improved portion itself, disconnected from the old structure, and also in another view, so much only of the old structure as will suffice to show the connection of the invention therewith.
Particularly, Figures 3 and 7 show blank or unfinished elements in the drawings.
Additionally, the drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show “nodes 5” in Figure 6 as described in the specification. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing.
Additionally, Figure 1 is prior art, but is not labeled such, therefore it is objected to.
MPEP § 608.02(d). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter because the claim(s) as a whole, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. As summarized in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, examiners must perform a Two-Part Analysis for Judicial Exceptions.
Step 1
In Step 1, it must be determined whether the claimed invention is directed to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter. The instant invention encompasses a computer implemented method in claims 1-7 (i.e., a process). All claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories and meet the requirements of step 1.
Step 2A
Prong One
The claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The instant invention is broadly directed to a graph manipulation method. Claim 1 recites the following:
A method for processing image data for automated segmentation of an arteriovenous malformation, the method being computer-implemented and comprising: obtaining a graph representation comprising nodes and connections of a vessel system; combining nodes of the graph representation connected directly to one another that are connected directly to more than two nodes, such that a combined node is formed; determining a highest number of direct connections to other nodes that have nodes or combined nodes of the graph representation, and determining a node or combined node having a highest number of nodes connected directly to the node or the combined node as the origin node; combining, with the origin node, nodes connected directly to the origin node that fulfill: the nodes are connected directly to precisely two nodes; or the nodes are connected directly to at least four nodes; combining, with the origin node, a branching node connected to the origin node when the branching node fulfills: the branching node is connected directly to precisely three nodes; and the branching node is connected directly or indirectly to a further branching node that is connected directly to at least four nodes, wherein the indirect connection comprises one or more nodes that are each connected directly to precisely two nodes; carrying out the method once again, beginning with the combining of the nodes connected directly to the origin node, when nodes are combined with the origin node; and providing a graph representation established in the combining of the branching node with the origin node for display by a display device, for carrying out further image processing steps, or for a combination thereof.
Claim 1 encompass the abstract idea, which is also encompassed by the dependent claims 2-7.
Claim 1 recites the steps for manipulating node relations, which is directed to the mathematical relationships and calculations, a mathematical concept.
Prong Two
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because mere instruction to implement on a computer or a computer model, or merely using a computer or computer model as a tool to perform the abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, and/or generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a technological environment or field of use is not considered integration into a practical application. Claim 1 recites using a display device to display the graph. Using a display device to display is a generic feature of displays, which does not represent a technological improvement. The using of the computer and display does not add improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology field, which failed to enable the abstract idea to integrate into a practical application. Claims 2-7 also encompass the failure to enable the abstract idea. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to enable the abstract idea to integrate into a practical application. The conventional computers over generic network as presented are directed to the components of a system that amount to merely field of use type limitations and/or extra solution activity to implement the mental processes using collected data to predict a result.
Step 2B
Step 2B in the analysis requires us to determine whether the claims do significantly more than simply describe that abstract method. Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1297. We must examine the limitations of the claims to determine whether the claims contain an "inventive concept" to "transform" the claimed abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter. Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2357 (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294, 1298). The transformation of an abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter "requires 'more than simply stat[ing] the [abstract idea] while adding the words 'apply it."' Id. (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294) (alterations in original). "A claim that recites an abstract idea must include 'additional features' to ensure 'that the [claim] is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the [abstract idea].'" Id. (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1297) (alterations in original). Those "additional features" must be more than "well-understood, routine, conventional activity." Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1298.
The present claims include the additional elements other than the abstract idea which include a computer. These additional elements are merely conventional computer. Any potentially technical aspects of the claims are well-known generic computer components performing conventional functions (e.g., a processor performing generic data handling using mathematical concepts). The present claims have been analyzed both individually and in combination and, the instant claims do not provide any improvement of the functioning of the computer or improvement to computer technology or any other technical field. There do not appear to be any meaningful limitations other than those that are well-understood, routine and conventional in the field. Thus the present claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The claims are generally linked to implement an abstract idea on a computer. When looked at individually and as a whole, the claim limitations are determined to be an abstract idea without "significantly more," and thus not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 6-7 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding Claim 6, in line 1 it recites “further comprising”, however the steps listed, such as “receiving a three-dimensional (3D) image dataset;” are understood to occur before the steps of the method of Claim 1. Paragraph [0070] in the specification mentions a 3D image dataset being received before subsequent combination of nodes. On the other hand, the claim mentions “further comprising”, meaning this step would occur after the combinations demonstrated in Claim 1. It is unclear whether the steps described in Claim 6 should occur before or after the steps of Claim 1. Therefore, the order of steps should be made clear.
Claim 15 recites similar language to Claim 6, and is therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would not know how to make and/or use the claimed invention without undue experimentation.
Claims 7 and 16 are rejected due to being dependent on a claim rejected under 112(a).
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 1-16 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.
Regarding Claim 1, it recites in line 7 “determining a highest number of direct connections to other nodes that have nodes or combined nodes of the graph representation”. It is unclear how a highest number would have nodes. For purposes of examination, the examiner is interpreting this as determining the highest degree in the graph.
In lines 8-10, it recites “determining a node or combined node having a highest number of nodes connected directly to the node or the combined node as the origin node”, but it is unclear how a node or combined node could have a “highest number of nodes connected directly” to itself, as a highest number is a relative term. Additionally, “determining… as the origin node” lacks antecedent basis, as there was no “origin node” previously defined. For purposes of examination, the examiner is interpreting this as determining a node with the highest degree in the graph.
In line 21, it recites “carrying out the method once again, beginning with the combining of the nodes connected directly to the origin node, when nodes are combined with the origin node”. It is unclear how this is being implemented, and “when nodes are combined with the origin node” exactly entails, as there are multiple steps of combination. For purposes of examination, the examiner is interpreting this to mean that the method can be repeated by the user.
In line 25, it recites “or for a combination thereof”. However, it is unclear what this combination is. For purposes of examination, the examiner is interpreting this to mean further image processing steps.
Therefore, Claim 1 is unclear and indefinite.
Claims 8, 9, and 10 recite similar language to Claim 1, and are rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding Claim 2, it recites in line 4, “wherein the end component comprises an end node that is connected directly to precisely one further node, and comprises no nodes or only such nodes as are connected directly to precisely two further nodes.”, but it is unclear how an end component both comprises an end node while also comprising no nodes. For purposes of examination, the examiner is interpreting the end component to comprise an end node that is connected directly to precisely one further node.
Additionally, line 4 recites “such nodes”, but it is unclear which nodes these are referring to. For purposes of examination, the examiner is interpreting this to mean end nodes.
Therefore, Claim 2 is unclear and indefinite.
Claim 11 recites similar language to Claim 2, and is rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding Claim 3, line 6 recites “nidus connections”, which is an undefined term. While “nidus” is a term of the art, “nidus connection” is not a well-known term in the art. For purposes of examination, the examiner is interpreting this to mean a connection connecting to the origin node.
Therefore, Claim 3 is unclear and indefinite.
Claim 12 recites similar language to Claim 3, and is rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding Claim 4, it recites in line 3, “and one or more of the subsequent method steps are carried out”. It is unclear what specific method steps are carried out here, and what it is referring to. For purposes of examination, the examiner is interpreting this to mean if there are multiple origin nodes, the method of Claim 1 is carried out for each one.
Therefore, Claim 4 is unclear and indefinite.
Claim 13 recites similar language to Claim 4, and is rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding Claim 5, line 1 recites “depending on a result of the method steps carried out previously”, but it is unclear what a result of the method steps would be, and how that would influence the proceeding steps. Line 2 recites “one or more nodes or combined nodes with a number of nodes connected directly to the one or more nodes or combined nodes that is less than the highest number are selected as origin nodes”, but this contradicts Claim 1, where it set nodes or combined nodes with the highest number as origin nodes. Line 4 recites “and one or more of the method steps, beginning with the combining of the nodes, is carried out”, but it is unclear what one or more of the method steps entails, and is therefore unclear.
For purposes of examination, the examiner is interpreting this claim to mean choosing nodes that are not of the highest degree in the graph as origin nodes, and the method of Claim 1 is carried out for each one.
Therefore, Claim 5 is unclear and indefinite,
Claim 14 recites similar language to Claim 5, and is rejected under similar rationale.
Claims 6, 7, 15, and 16 are rejected upon being dependent of a base claim that is rejected.
Claims 1-16 will be examined as best understood by the examiner.
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.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means”. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Claim 8: Line 2 “a computer unit configured to”
Claim 9 Line 4 “a computer unit configured to “, Line 34 “the imaging modality is configured to”
The recited “a computer unit configured to” in both Claim 8 Line 2 and Claim 9 Line 4 is not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
These claim limitation(s) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends 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 remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
However, the recited “the imaging modality is configured to” doesn’t convey any particular structural meaning, just function.
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: “the imaging modality is configured to” in Claim 9 Line 34.
Because this claim limitation is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it is being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof (see paragraph [0010] for imaging modality corresponding structure).
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.
Claims 1-6 and 8-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al. (WO 2020258819 A1), hereinafter referred to as Wu, in view of Chen et al. (GRAPH COARSENING: FROM SCIENTIFIC COMPUTING TO MACHINE LEARNING, 2021, https://arxiv.org/pdf/2106.11863), hereinafter referred to as Chen.
Regarding Claim 1, Wu teaches a method for processing image data for automated segmentation of an arteriovenous malformation, the method being computer-implemented and comprising:
obtaining a graph representation comprising nodes and connections of a vessel system;
Wu [Page 4 Paragraph 4] "In the above formula, V .sub.AVM is the set of nodes contained in AVM, Graph .sup.n is the n .sup.th power of the adjacency matrix Graph, and v .sub.H is the node with the highest degree; if the node with Graph .sup.n coordinates (x,y) is not 0, It means that there is a path of length n from node x to node y, and the skeleton path between all nodes that meet the conditions and the AVM node constitutes the AVM lesion."
determining a highest number of direct connections to other nodes that have nodes or combined nodes of the graph representation, and determining a node or combined node having a highest number of nodes connected directly to the node or the combined node as the origin node;
Wu [Page 4 Paragraph 1] "finding the node with the highest degree from the adjacency matrix Graph,"
providing a graph representation
Wu [Page 11 Paragraph 2] "The input system can receive input digital or character information, and generate signal input. The output system may include display devices such as a display screen."
Wu [Page 8 Paragraph 5] “Output: the adjacency matrix Graph, which is the spanning tree of the vascular skeleton line.”
Wu [Page 8 Paragraph 6] “Step 400: Find the node with the highest degree (that is, the most connected nodes) from the adjacency matrix Graph, and locate and segment the AVM lesions in the spanning tree according to the node with the highest degree;”
Examiner Note: After a graph is output, it is used in further image processing steps, and the output system may include display devices.
However, Wu doesn’t teach combining nodes of the graph representation connected directly to one another that are connected directly to more than two nodes, such that a combined node is formed;
combining, with the origin node, nodes connected directly to the origin node that fulfill:
the nodes are connected directly to precisely two nodes; or
the nodes are connected directly to at least four nodes;
combining, with the origin node, a branching node connected to the origin node when the branching node fulfills:
the branching node is connected directly to precisely three nodes; and
the branching node is connected directly or indirectly to a further branching node that is connected directly to at least four nodes, wherein the indirect connection comprises one or more nodes that are each connected directly to precisely two nodes;
carrying out the method once again, beginning with the combining of the nodes connected directly to the origin node, when nodes are combined with the origin node;
a graph representation established in the combining of the branching node with the origin node
Chen teaches combining nodes of the graph representation connected directly to one another that are connected directly to more than two nodes, such that a combined node is formed;
PNG
media_image1.png
205
417
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Chen Page 4 Figure 2.1 Annotated shows combined node D being a combination of 3 nodes, with 2 of the nodes (3 and 4) being connected directly to more than two nodes. The top left node in group D (3) has 3 connections, and the bottom right node has 4 connections (4), both are more than 2.
combining, with the origin node (highest degree), nodes connected directly to the origin node that fulfill:
the nodes are connected directly to precisely two nodes
Chen Page 4 Figure 2.1 Annotated has a graph on the left, where the highest number of direct connections a node contains is 4. There are multiple nodes within the graph that have 4 connections, and therefore are origin nodes. Particularly in this case, combined node F contains an origin node with 4 connections on the top right of it (11), and the other node at the bottom left being combined with this origin node is a node with precisely 2 nodes connected directly to it (13).)
combining, with the origin node (highest degree), a branching node connected to the origin node when the branching node fulfills:
the branching node is connected directly to precisely three nodes;
Chen Page 4 Figure 2.1 Annotated has an origin node with 4 connections at the top right of combined node F (11). The top left connection of this origin node of F connected to the bottom node of combined node B (8), which has 3 connections, and in this case is the branching node.
and
the branching node is connected directly This branching node further directly connects to the right, which is the bottom right node of C (9), which has 4 connections, which is the further branching node.), wherein the indirect connection comprises one or more nodes that are each connected directly to precisely two nodes (direct connection was illustrated);
carrying out the method once again, beginning with the combining of the nodes connected directly to the origin node, when nodes are combined with the origin node;
Chen Page 4 Section 2.1 “The coarsening strategy can be expanded into a multilevel framework by repeating the process described above on the graph associated with the nodes in the coarse set.”
Examiner Note: This demonstrates carrying out the method once again, after a combination.
a graph representation established in the combining of the branching node with the origin node
Chen Page 4 Figure 2.1 Annotated shows the graph on the right being the result of a combination.
Wu and Chen are analogous in the art because they are from similar problem solving areas, in this case, examining and manipulating nodes in graphs. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Wu’s invention of a graph representative of a vessel system and identification of an origin node with Chen’s invention of coarsening (combining) nodes, to achieve an invention that combines nodes within a vessel system around an origin node based on specific rules, to simplify the graph to reduce computational complexity, while preserving overall structural properties.
Regarding Claim 2, Chen further teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising:
combining nodes of an end component connected to the origin node with the origin node,
wherein the end component comprises an end node that is connected directly to precisely one further node, and comprises no nodes or only such nodes as are connected directly to precisely two further nodes.
PNG
media_image1.png
205
417
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Chen Page 4 Figure 2.1 Annotated shows combined node F containing a node at the top right with 4 connections, the origin node (11). The origin node is connected to another, node bottom left of F, which is the end node (13), which is connected directly to precisely one further node, the node in group G (10).
Wu and Chen are analogous in the art because they are from similar problem solving areas, in this case, examining and manipulating nodes in graphs. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combined Wu’s invention of a graph representative of a vessel system and identification of an origin node with Chen’s invention of coarsening (combining) nodes, to achieve an invention that combines nodes within a vessel system around an origin node based on specific rules, to simplify the graph to reduce computational complexity, which preserving overall structural properties.
Regarding Claim 3, Chen further teaches The method of claim 1, further comprising:
combining nodes of a large component connected to the origin node with the origin node,
PNG
media_image1.png
205
417
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Chen Page 4 Figure 2.1 Annotated has an origin node at top right of combined node F (11), which has 4 connections (highest in the graph). Node of group G (10) and the bottom left node of F (13) are connected to one another, and are deemed a large component.
wherein the large component consists of nodes connected to one another,
Chen Page 4 Figure 2.1 Annotated has a large component which contains node of G (10) and bottom left node of F (13) connected to one another.
wherein a number of nodes within the large component that are connected directly to precisely three nodes is less than a number of nidus connections of the large component to the origin node plus two, and
Chen Page 4 Figure 2.1 Annotated large component has 0 nodes that have precisely three, which is less that the number of nidus connections between the origin node (11) and the large component (10 and 13) which is 1 (connection between top right node of F and bottom left node of F (11 and 13)) plus 2, as 0 < 3.
wherein the nodes of the large component are directly connected exclusively to the origin node and to other nodes of the large component.
Chen Page 4 Figure 2.1 Annotated has the large component (10 and 13) previously defined only connected to itself, or the top right node in F, which is the origin point (11).
Wu and Chen are analogous in the art because they are from similar problem solving areas, in this case, examining and manipulating nodes in graphs. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combined Wu’s invention of a graph representative of a vessel system and identification of an origin node with Chen’s invention of coarsening (combining) nodes, to achieve an invention that combines nodes within a vessel system around an origin node based on specific rules, to simplify the graph to reduce computational complexity, which preserving overall structural properties.
Regarding Claim 4, Wu further teaches the method of claim 1, wherein, when a plurality of nodes or combined nodes has the highest number of nodes connected directly, in the determining, a number of nodes or combined nodes of the plurality of nodes or combined nodes are selected as origin nodes, and one or more of the subsequent method steps are carried out, separately in each case, for each of the selected origin nodes.
Wu [Page 4 Paragraph 1] "finding the node with the highest degree from the adjacency matrix Graph,"
Examiner Note: This is simply repeating previous steps, except choosing a different valid origin node each time. Wu and Chen already teach the steps of Claim 1. It would be an obvious leap to just repeat the process.
Wu and Chen teach the steps of Claim 1, but they don’t explicitly teach carrying out the steps for each origin node in the case that there are multiple origin nodes. However, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to repeat the steps of Claim 1 for each origin node, as repetition of a method is not a novel step.
Regarding Claim 5, Wu further teaches the method of claim 1, wherein, depending on a result of the method steps carried out previously, one or more nodes or combined nodes with a number of nodes connected directly to the one or more nodes or combined nodes that is less than the highest number are selected as origin nodes, and one or more of the method steps, beginning with the combining of the nodes, is carried out, separately in each case, for each of the selected origin nodes.
Wu [Page 4 Paragraph 1] "finding the node with the highest degree from the adjacency matrix Graph,"
Examiner Note: Identifying a node(s) with the highest degree also identifies all nodes that are below the highest degree, which in this case would be origin nodes.
Regarding Claim 6, Wu further teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising:
receiving a three-dimensional (3D) image dataset;
Wu [Page 7 Paragraph 5] “Step 100: Obtain an MRI image;”
Examiner Note: MRI images are 3D image data, as MRIs scan the body in three-dimensions.
establishing a representation of a vessel system in the 3D image dataset;
establishing a line representation of the vessel system based on the representation of the vessel system; and
Wu [Page 7 Paragraph 6] “Step 200: segment the vascular tree from the MRI angiography image to generate the vascular skeleton line;”
Examiner Note: The segmented vascular tree is a representation of the vessel system, and the vascular skeleton line is a line representation of the vessel system.
establishing a graph representation comprising nodes and connections between the nodes of the line representation.
Wu [Page 7 Paragraph 8] “Step 300: Use the weight-based Breadth-First Search (BFS) algorithm to create a spanning tree of the vascular skeleton line, and construct a topological path from the carotid artery root through the blood supply artery to the AVM lesion and then to the drainage vein;”
Examiner Note: The spanning tree is a graph representation, and trees are comprised of nodes and connections.
Regarding Claim 8, it recites similar limitations to Claim 1, except for a computer unit configured to process image data for automated segmentation of an arteriovenous malformation, the computer unit being configured to process image data comprising the computer unit being configured to: (Wu “The memory stores instructions executable by the one processor, and the instructions are executed by the at least one processor, so that the at least one processor can perform the following operations of the arteriovenous malformation segmentation method described above:”), and is therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding Claim 9, it recites similar limitations to Claim 8, except for an imaging modality (Wu “Image acquisition module: used to acquire nuclear magnetic resonance angiography images;”), and is therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding Claim 10, it recites similar limitations to Claim 1, except for a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium (Wu “As a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, the memory can be used to store non-transitory software programs, non-transitory computer executable programs, and modules.), and is therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding Claim 11, it recites similar limitations to Claim 2, and is rejected based on similar rationale.
Regarding Claim 12, it recites similar limitations to Claim 3, and is rejected based on similar rationale.
Regarding Claim 13, it recites similar limitations to Claim 4, and is rejected based on similar rationale.
Regarding Claim 14, it recites similar limitations to Claim 5, and is rejected based on similar rationale.
Regarding Claim 15, it recites similar limitations to Claim 6, and is rejected based on similar rationale.
Claims 7 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al. (WO 2020258819 A1), hereinafter referred to as Wu, in view of Chen et al. (GRAPH COARSENING: FROM SCIENTIFIC COMPUTING TO MACHINE LEARNING, 2021, https://arxiv.org/pdf/2106.11863), in further view of Yu et al. (CN 116402773 A), hereinafter referred to as Yu.
Regarding Claim 7, Wu and Chen don’t teach the method of claim 6, further comprising:
However, Yu teaches identifying voxels of the 3D image dataset that correspond to the nodes and origin nodes established in the graph representation,
Yu [Page 6 Paragraph 3] “and obtaining the label value of the node of the minimum spanning tree, obtaining the label value of all skeleton points of the vascular framework; according to the label value of the point in the minimum spanning tree… obtaining all the voxel points in the original blood vessel image, obtaining the nearest framework point in the framework of each voxel point“
Examiner Note: Voxel points in the original blood vessel image are obtained from the label value of the nodes, therefore identifying voxels that correspond to the nodes.
wherein, for each node and origin node established, a point lying closest to the respective node or origin node in the line representation of the vessel system is determined.
Yu [Page 6 Paragraph 3] “and obtaining the label value of the node of the minimum spanning tree, obtaining the label value of all skeleton points of the vascular framework; according to the label value of the point in the minimum spanning tree… obtaining all the voxel points in the original blood vessel image, obtaining the nearest framework point in the framework of each voxel point“
Examiner Note: The nearest framework point in the framework (the line representation of the vessel system) is obtained, which is a point lying closest to the respective node in the line representation being determined. Each voxel point is representative of a respective node.
Wu, Chen, and Yu are analogous in the art because they are from similar problem solving areas, in this case, examining and manipulating nodes in graphs. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Wu in view of Chen’s invention of a graph representative of a vessel system and identification of an origin node with Yu’s invention of identifying voxels and closest points on a vessel system corresponding to a node, to achieve an invention that re-associates graph nodes with corresponding locations in the vessel system, to allow for further vessel analysis and a proper representation of the results of the graph manipulation in image form.
Regarding Claim 16, it recites similar limitations to Claim 7, and is rejected based on similar rationale.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID W SOON whose telephone number is (571)272-8113. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:00.
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, Alicia Harrington can be reached at (571) 272-2330. 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.
/DAVID W SOON/Examiner, Art Unit 2615
/ALICIA M HARRINGTON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2615
Prosecution Insights