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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-22 are pending in this application [1/3/2025].
Claims 1-4, 10-15 and 21-22 have been preliminary amended [1/3/2025].
Drawings
The drawings received on 12/3/2024 are accepted for examination purposes.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/3/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Objections
Claims 6 and 17 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 6 line 5 recites ‘the second tomographic image’ that depends from claim 4. Claim 4 does not recite ‘a second tomographic image’, however claim 5 recites ‘a second tomographic image’. There is insufficient antecedent basis for ‘the second tomographic image’. Similar reasoning for dependent claim 17. Examiner treats claims 6 and 17 are dependent on claims 5 and 16, respectively. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4, 7, 11-15, 18 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Hejrati et al. (US-2025/0285287).
As to Claim 1, Hejrati teaches ‘An ophthalmic information processing apparatus, comprising: processing circuitry configured as acquisition circuitry configured to acquire image data of a first tomographic image obtained by performing optical coherence tomography on an eye to be examined [Figs 1A-B (101, 114), par 0033, 0036, 0053, 0090 – image analysis system includes one or more processors that receives an OCT image of an eye]; a segmentation processor configured to perform segmentation processing on the first tomographic image based on the image data to identify a boundary of a layer region in a depth direction [Figs 1A-B (110), par 0034-0037, 0053, 0055-0056, 0061 – segmentation tool generates a plurality of segmented images and identifies boundaries including an initial boundary of an OCT B-scan]; and a display controller configured to distinguishably display the boundary of the layer region identified by the segmentation processor, and one or more boundary candidate information representing a modification candidate of the boundary on a display [Figs 1A-B (122, 126), par 0057, 0059, 0069-0071, 0079, 0099, 0140 – graphical user interface displays anchor points and anchor indicators (i.e., boundary candidate information) to enable a user to correct the boundaries identified in the segmented images]’.
Further, in regards to claim 12, the ophthalmic information processing apparatus of claim 1 performs the ophthalmic information processing method of claim 12.
Further, in regards to claim 22, the ophthalmic information processing method of claim 12 is fully embodied on the computer readable non-transitory recording medium of claim 22.
As to Claims 2 and 13, Hejrati teaches ‘wherein the display controller is configured to display the boundary of the layer region and the one or more boundary candidate information in a superimposed state on the display [Figs 1A-B (122, 126), par 0057, 0059, 0069-0071, 0079, 0099 – graphical user interface uses anchor points and anchor indicators to enable a user to correct the boundaries identified and overlaid in the segmented images]’.
As to Claims 3 and 14, Hejrati teaches ‘wherein the display controller is configured to display each of the boundary of the layer region and the one or more boundary candidate information in different manners on the display [par 0043, 0057, 0079, 0136 – segmented image may be displayed in graphical user interface such that each group of pixels that belong to a different category may be represented with a different graphical indicator or feature to distinguish each group of pixels, for example, different colors, shading, highlighting, patterns, labels, text, and/or other types of graphical indicators or graphical features including anchor points and anchor indicators that can be user adjusted/corrected]’.
As to Claims 4 and 15, Hejrati teaches ‘wherein the processing circuitry is further configured as further comprising: operation circuitry; and a modification processor configured to modify the boundary of the layer region based on boundary candidate information designated based on operation information of a user provided to the operation circuitry, from among the one or more boundary candidate information [par 0073-0079, 0148-0152 – adjustment tool processes user input to update the positions of one or more of anchor points such that the anchor points have final positions to identify a new set of boundaries to reclassify (or reassign) one or more pixels of segmented image]’.
As to Claims 7 and 18, Hejrati teaches ‘wherein the one or more boundary candidate information includes a boundary of the layer region obtained by fitting the boundary of the layer region, which is identified by performing the segmentation processing, using a predetermined fitting function [par 0037-0041, 0069, 0135 – anchor points and anchor indicators is formed that the line segments that connect the anchor points approximate a curvature (i.e., fitting) of initial boundary within selected tolerances]’.
As to Claim 11, Hejrati teaches ‘An ophthalmic apparatus, comprising: an optical system configured to perform optical coherence tomography on an eye to be examined; an image forming circuit configured to form a first tomographic image based on a detection result of interference light acquired by the optical system [par 0036, 0044, 0051-0054 – image analysis system may also be referred to as a medical imaging analysis system for analyzing captured medical eye images using OCT scanners]; and an ophthalmic information processing apparatus, wherein the ophthalmic information processing apparatus includes processing circuitry configured as: acquisition circuitry configured to acquire image data of the first tomographic image obtained by performing optical coherence tomography on the eye to be examined [Figs 1A-B (101, 114), par 0033, 0053 – image analysis system includes one or more processors that receives an OCT image]; a segmentation processor configured to perform segmentation processing on the first tomographic image based on the image data to identify a boundary of a layer region in a depth direction [Figs 1A-B (110), par 0034-0037, 0055-0056, 0061 – segmentation tool generates a plurality of segmented images and identifies boundaries including an initial boundary]; and a display controller configured to distinguishably display the boundary of the layer region identified by the segmentation processor, and one or more boundary candidate information representing a modification candidate of the boundary on a display [Figs 1A-B (122, 126), par 0057, 0059, 0069-0071, 0079, 0099, 0140 – graphical user interface displays anchor points and anchor indicators (i.e., boundary candidate information) to enable a user to correct the boundaries identified in the segmented images].
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) 5-6, 8, 17-18 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hejrati et al. in view of Huang (US-2016/0284103).
As to Claims 5 and 16, Hejrati teaches all of the claimed elements/features as recited in dependent claims 4 and 15 and independent claims 1 and 12, respectively. Hejrati does not disclose expressly ‘wherein the one or more boundary candidate information includes a boundary of a layer region in a depth direction, the boundary of the layer region being identified by performing the segmentation processing on a second tomographic image, the second tomographic image being a slice image arranged adjacent to the first tomographic image in a C-scan direction or a slice image arranged with a gap of one or more slice images in the C-scan direction relative to the first tomographic image’.
Hejrati teaches for a 3D image, boundary points may include a different group of boundary points for each selected plane/slice that is parallel to the reference 2D plane with a sequential order being left to right across each of these individual selected planes/slices for identifying initial boundaries of a segmented OCT B-scan/X, Y plane image rendering retinal layer depth [par 0053, 0068, 0072, 0095-0096].
Huang teaches C-scan is a two-dimensional cross-sectional or plan view in x-y plane in which a user can indicate a boundary to represent tissue layers or regions of interest segmented and digitally sliced along any plane or arbitrary surface of one or more “slices” [Fig 1, par 0009-0012, 0056-0057, 0070, 0075, 0079, 0082].
Hejrati in view of Huang teaches ‘wherein the one or more boundary candidate information includes a boundary of a layer region in a depth direction, the boundary of the layer region being identified by performing the segmentation processing on a second tomographic image, the second tomographic image being a slice image arranged adjacent to the first tomographic image in a C-scan direction or a slice image arranged with a gap of one or more slice images in the C-scan direction relative to the first tomographic image [Hejrati: par 0053, 0068, 0072, 0095-0096; Huang: Fig 1, par 0009-0012, 0056-0057, 0070, 0075, 0079, 0082]’.
Hejrati and Huang are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely information processing systems for analyzing images. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include identifying boundaries in segmented digitally sliced images, as taught by Huang. The motivation for doing so would have been to improving user image analysis for measuring the sizes of tissue anomalies and pathologies. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Huang with Hejrati to obtain the invention as specified in claims 5 and 16.
As to Claims 6 and 17, Huang in the proposed combination teaches ‘wherein the one or more boundary candidate information includes a boundary of a layer region in a depth direction, the boundary of the layer region being identified by performing the segmentation processing on the second tomographic image of the eye to be examined acquired in past [par 0060, 0107, 0113 – scan and angiogram studies are repeated on the patient’s eye at a plurality of visits including previously determined biological information]’.
Hejrati and Huang are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely information processing systems for analyzing images. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include multiple scan and angiogram studies during repeated visits, as taught by Huang. The motivation for doing so would have been to improving user image analysis for measuring the sizes of tissue anomalies and pathologies. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Huang with Hejrati to obtain the invention as specified in claims 6 and 17.
As to Claims 8 and 19, Hejrati in view of Huang teaches ‘wherein the one or more boundary candidate information includes a boundary of the layer region obtained by sequentially repeating setting a boundary of a layer region, which is identified by performing the segmentation processing on a third tomographic image different from the first tomographic image, two or more times as a boundary of the layer region in a tomographic image adjacent to the third tomographic image in a C-scan direction [Hejrati: par 0053, 0068, 0072, 0095-0096 – for a 3D image, boundary points may include a different group of boundary points for each selected plane/slice that is parallel to the reference 2D plane with a sequential order being left to right across each of these individual selected planes/slices for identifying initial boundaries of a segmented OCT B-scan/X, Y plane image rendering retinal layer depth; Huang: Fig 1, par 0009-0012, 0056-0057, 0070, 0075, 0079, 0082 – C-scan is a two-dimensional cross-sectional or plan view in x-y plane in which a user can indicate boundaries to represent tissue layers or regions of interest segmented and digitally sliced along any plane or arbitrary surface of each one or more “slices”, where one or more includes two or more”]’.
Hejrati and Huang are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely information processing systems for analyzing images. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include identifying boundaries in segmented digitally sliced images, as taught by Huang. The motivation for doing so would have been to improving user image analysis for measuring the sizes of tissue anomalies and pathologies. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Huang with Hejrati to obtain the invention as specified in claims 8 and 19.
Claim(s) 9 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hejrati et al. in view of Huang and further in view of Furuuchi et al. (US-2017/0252213).
As to Claims 9 and 20, Hejrati teaches ‘a boundary of a layer region identified by performing the segmentation processing [Figs 1A-B (110), par 0034-0037, 0053, 0055-0056, 0061 – segmentation tool generates a plurality of segmented images and identifies boundaries including an initial boundary of an OCT B-scan]; a boundary of a layer region obtained by fitting the boundary of the layer region, which is identified by performing the segmentation processing, using a predetermined fitting function [par 0037-0041, 0069, 0135 – anchor points and anchor indicators is formed that the line segments that connect the anchor points approximate a curvature (i.e., fitting) of initial boundary within selected tolerances].
Hejrati does not disclose expressly ‘wherein the one or more boundary candidate information includes a boundary of the layer region obtained by performing affine transformation on at least one of: a boundary of a layer region in a depth direction, the boundary of the layer region being identified by performing the segmentation processing on a second tomographic image, the second tomographic image being a slice image arranged adjacent to the first tomographic image in a C-scan direction or a slice image arranged with a gap of one or more slice images in the C-scan direction relative to the first tomographic image; or a boundary of the layer region obtained by sequentially repeating setting a boundary of a layer region, which is identified by performing the segmentation processing on a third tomographic image different from the first tomographic image, two or more times as a boundary of the layer region in a tomographic image adjacent to the third tomographic image in the C-scan direction’.
Hejrati teaches for a 3D image, boundary points may include a different group of boundary points for each selected plane/slice that is parallel to the reference 2D plane with a sequential order being left to right across each of these individual selected planes/slices for identifying initial boundaries of a segmented OCT B-scan/X, Y plane image rendering retinal layer depth [par 0053, 0068, 0072, 0095-0096].
Huang teaches C-scan is a two-dimensional cross-sectional or plan view in x-y plane in which a user can indicate boundaries to represent tissue layers or regions of interest segmented and digitally sliced along any plane or arbitrary surface of each one or more “slices” (i.e., second and third tomographic images), where “one or more” includes “two or more” [Fig 1, par 0009-0012, 0056-0057, 0070, 0075, 0079, 0082].
Hejrati in view of Huang teaches ‘wherein the one or more boundary candidate information includes a boundary of the layer region obtained on at least one of: a boundary of a layer region in a depth direction, the boundary of the layer region being identified by performing the segmentation processing on a second tomographic image, the second tomographic image being a slice image arranged adjacent to the first tomographic image in a C-scan direction or a slice image arranged with a gap of one or more slice images in the C-scan direction relative to the first tomographic image; or a boundary of the layer region obtained by sequentially repeating setting a boundary of a layer region, which is identified by performing the segmentation processing on a third tomographic image different from the first tomographic image, two or more times as a boundary of the layer region in a tomographic image adjacent to the third tomographic image in the C-scan direction [Hejrati: par 0053, 0068, 0072, 0095-0096; Huang: Fig 1, par 0009-0012, 0056-0057, 0070, 0075, 0079, 0082]’.
Hejrati and Huang are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely information processing systems for analyzing images. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include identifying boundaries in segmented digitally sliced images, as taught by Huang. The motivation for doing so would have been to improving user image analysis for measuring the sizes of tissue anomalies and pathologies. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Huang with Hejrati to obtain the invention as specified.
Hejrati in view of Huang does not disclose expressly ‘by performing affine transformation’.
Furuuchi in the proposed combination teaches ‘by performing affine transformation [Figs 3, 4, par 0076-0077, 0083-0085, 0089 – a method of using affine transformation for aligning images with each other to extract common features of at least one OCT image which are temporally different from each other of a patient’s eye detecting boundary layers of each generated slice images in a depth direction]’.
Hejrati in view of Huang are analogous art with Furuuchi because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely information processing systems for analyzing tomographic images. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include affine transformation, as taught by Furuuchi. The motivation for doing so would have been to detecting a displacement direction and displacement amount between extracted features to treat a patient’s eye. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Furuuchi with Hejrati in view of Huang to obtain the invention as specified in claims 9 and 20.
Claim(s) 10 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hejrati et al. in view of Kim et al. (US-2023/0137102).
As to Claims 10 and 21, Hejrati teaches all of the claimed elements/features as recited in dependent claims 4 and 15 and independent claims 1 and 12, respectively. Hejrati does not disclose expressly ‘wherein the segmentation processor includes: an edge detector configured to detect an edge in the first tomographic image based on brightness values of the first tomographic image; boundary identifying circuitry configured to identify two or more boundary candidates of the layer region so as to maximize or minimize cost when passing through the edge; and the boundary identifying circuitry is further configured to identify, as the boundary of the layer region, a first boundary candidate that maximizes or minimizes the cost, and to identify, as the one or more boundary candidate information, information representing top one or more boundary candidates when the two or more boundary candidates excluding the first boundary candidate are arranged in ascending order or descending order based on the cost’, although Hejrati teaches segmentation tool generates a plurality of segmented images and identifies boundaries including an initial boundary of an OCT B-scan and displays anchor points and anchor indicators (i.e., boundary candidate information) to enable a user to adjust/correct the boundaries identified in the segmented images [Figs 1A-B, par 0034-0037, 0053, 0055-0057, 0061, 0069-0071, 0079].
Kim in the proposed combination teaches ‘wherein the segmentation processor includes: an edge detector configured to detect an edge in the first tomographic image based on brightness values of the first tomographic image; boundary identifying circuitry configured to identify two or more boundary candidates of the layer region so as to maximize or minimize cost when passing through the edge; and the boundary identifying circuitry is further configured to identify, as the boundary of the layer region, a first boundary candidate that maximizes or minimizes the cost, and to identify, as the one or more boundary candidate information, information representing top one or more boundary candidates when the two or more boundary candidates excluding the first boundary candidate are arranged in ascending order or descending order based on the cost [par 0024, 0033-0036, 0038-0040 – calculating retinal boundary lines, the brightness change in the depth direction (axial direction) of the retina is measured, where boundary line between layers is determined by connecting the coordinates of the pixels where a node cost is calculated for each position is the maximum with unidirectional edges and boundary line of the retinal layers is determined by the set of edges that minimizes the sum of the cost of the edges connecting the nodes where the image starts on the left side of the OCT image to the coordinate of the right edge]’.
Hejrati and Kim are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely information processing systems for analyzing images. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include the cost of edges connecting nodes, as taught by Kim. The motivation for doing so would have been to reliably differentiating retinal layers in an OCT image by taking into account the anatomical hierarchical relationship between the retinal layers. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Kim with Hejrati to obtain the invention as specified in claims 10 and 21.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record
a. US Publication No. 2025/0285287
b. US Publication No. 2016/0284103
c. US Publication No. 2017/0252213
d. US Publication No. 2023/0137102
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
e. US Publication No. 2021/0398259
f. US Patent No. 12,367,638
g. US Publication No. 202/0185909
h. US Publication No. 2013/0188135
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MIYA J CATO whose telephone number is (571)270-3954. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 830-530.
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, Akwasi Sarpong can be reached at 571.270.3438. 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.
/MIYA J CATO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2681
