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 .
Information Disclosure Statement(s)
The Information disclosure statement (IDS) filed on April 10th, 2025 has been acknowledged and considered by the examiner.
Drawing Objection(s)
Figures 1, 3-9 and 13-17 are objected to as depicting a block diagram without “readily identifiable” descriptors of each block, image, picture, as required by 37 CFR 1.84(n). Rule 84(n) requires “labeled representations” of graphical symbols, such as blocks, drawing, pictures; and any that are “not universally recognized may be used, subject to approval by the Office, if they are not likely to be confused with existing conventional symbols, and if they are readily identifiable.” In the case of figures 1, 3-9 and 13-17, the blocks are not readily identifiable per se and therefore require the insertion of text that identifies the function of that block. That is, each vacant block should be provided with a corresponding label identifying its function or purpose.
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 Objections
Claims 1 and 9 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, in lines 10-13,
“ quantify the one or more pathology or indication of the one or more
pathology or indication in a plurality of the two or more images to thereby detect
the one or more pathology or indication of the one or more pathology, disease or condition
progression.”
should be read as “
“ quantify the one or more pathology or indication of the one or more
pathology or indication in a plurality of the two or more images to thereby detect
the one or more pathology or indication of the one or more pathology, disease or condition progression.”
wherein the indentation of lines 12 and 13 should be further indented inward to align with the indentation of line 11 so that claim structure stays consistent and follow proper formality. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 9, “of the two or more by images” in line 2, should be read as “of the two or more images” to follow proper claim language and grammar. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 11-12, 14-15 and 17 are rejected under 112(b).
Regarding claim 11, in lines 1 and 2 the phrase "may be", the phrase “may be” is understood to have the same meaning, by the office, as the phrase "or the like" which renders the claim(s) indefinite because the claim(s) include(s) elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by "or the like"), thereby rendering the scope of the claim(s) unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 12, the phrase "may be", the phrase “may be” is understood to have the same meaning, by the office, as the phrase "or the like" which renders the claim(s) indefinite because the claim(s) include(s) elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by "or the like"), thereby rendering the scope of the claim(s) unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 14, the phrase "may be", the phrase “may be” is understood to have the same meaning, by the office, as the phrase "or the like" which renders the claim(s) indefinite because the claim(s) include(s) elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by "or the like"), thereby rendering the scope of the claim(s) unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 15, the phrase "may be", the phrase “may be” is understood to have the same meaning, by the office, as the phrase "or the like" which renders the claim(s) indefinite because the claim(s) include(s) elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by "or the like"), thereby rendering the scope of the claim(s) unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 17, the phrase "may be", the phrase “may be” is understood to have the same meaning, by the office, as the phrase "or the like" which renders the claim(s) indefinite because the claim(s) include(s) elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by "or the like"), thereby rendering the scope of the claim(s) unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim 3 is drawn to a “computer program product” per se, therefore, fail(s) to fall within a statutory category of invention, since applicant`s specification do not define the term “computer program product”.
A claim directed to a computer program itself is non-statutory because it is not:
A process occurring as a result of executing the program, or
A machine programmed to operate in accordance with the program, or
A manufacture structurally and functionally interconnected with the program in a manner which enable the program to act as a computer component and realize its functionality, or
A composition of matter.
See MPEP § 2106.01. Data structures not claimed as embodied in computer readable media are descriptive material per se and are not statutory because they are not capable of causing functional change in the computer. See, e.g., Warmerdam, 33 F.3d at 1361, 31 USPQ2d at 1760 (claim to a data structure per se held non-statutory). Such claimed data structures do not define any structural and functional interrelationships between the data structure and other claimed aspects of the invention, which permit the data structure's functionality to be realized. In contrast, a claimed computer readable medium encoded with a data structure defines structural and functional interrelationships between the data structure and the computer software and hardware components which permit the data structure's functionality to be realized, and is thus statutory. Similarly, computer programs claimed as computer listings per se, i.e., the descriptions or expressions of the programs are not physical “things.” They are neither computer components nor statutory processes, as they are not “acts” being performed. Such claimed computer programs do not define any structural and functional interrelationships between the computer program's functionality to be realized.
Examiner’s suggestion:
The Applicants are suggested to amend the independent claim 3 to indicate that, in some similar language, the computer program product carry instructions stored in a memory to be executed by a processor to carry out the instructions of the program product.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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.
Claims 1-4, 6-7, 10-11, 13-15, 17-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Eric Desgroseilliers et. al. (“US 2010/0302507 A1”).
Regarding claim 1, Desgroseilliers explicitly teaches a system for detecting one or more pathology or an indication of one or more pathology, disease or condition progression, the system comprising (Abstract discloses “a method for quantifying disease progression through retinal health assessment and management”): a processor configured to (Par. [0127] discloses “the machine-readable medium can contain various sets of instructions, code sequences, configuration information, or other data, which, when executed, cause a processor to performs steps in a method”): register two or more retinal images (Par. [0062] discloses “registering the first image and the second image on the basis of the first vascular map and the second vascular map”), the two or more images including images obtained at differing times (Par. [0062] discloses “obtaining a first image of a retina or iris at a point in time; generating a first vascular map of the first image of the retina or the iris; obtaining a second image of the retina or the iris at a later point in time; generating a second vascular map of the second image of the retina or the iris”); detect one or more pathology or indication of one or more pathology, disease or condition in the registered two or more images (“or” indicates a selection, only one of the options is the instant scope of the claim, the examiner selects “disease” which is disclosed in Par. [0062], which states “displaying at least one difference between the register first image and the second image to quantify a disease progression” indicating a detection of disease; Par. [0043] discloses “the ability to detect some changes in metabolic activity at the early stages of the disease provides the opportunity for much earlier detection of disease development”); locate the detected one or more pathology or indication of one or more pathology, disease or condition in a plurality of the two or more images (“or” indicates a selection, only one of the options is the instant scope of the claim, the examiner selects “disease” which is disclosed in Par. [0117], which states “the screen presents simultaneously two retinal images, which can be used to identify differences and anomalies”, moreover, Par. [0121] discloses “the factors linking both images can be locked such that both images can be changed simultaneously in magnification, location, wavelengths” indicating the registered images are used to find differences/anomalies based on locations of the two images); and quantify the one or more pathology or indication of the one or more pathology or indication in a plurality of the two or more images (“or” indicates a selection, only one of the options is the instant scope of the claim, the examiner selects “the one or more pathology” which is disclosed in Par. [0062], which states “displaying at least one difference between the registered first image and the second image to quantify a disease progression”, moreover, Par. [0069] discloses “1. Pathology tabs: selects the display mode specific to a particular mode…age-related macular degeneration mode…”) to thereby detect the one or more pathology or indication of the one or more pathology, disease or condition progression (“or” indicates a selection, only one of the options is the instant scope of the claim, the examiner selects “condition progression” which is disclosed in Par. [0062], which states “displaying at least one difference between the registered first image and the second image to quantify a disease progression”, moreover, Par. [0030] discloses “disease detection can only occur once it has produced an anatomical change in the retina. In most conditions, the anatomical changes detected are irreversible and indicate an established progression of the disease”).
Regarding claim 2, Desgroseilliers explicitly teaches a method for detecting one or more pathology or an indication of one or more pathology, disease, or condition progression, the method comprising (Abstract discloses “a method for quantifying disease progression through retinal health assessment and management”): registering two or more retinal images (Par. [0062] discloses “registering the first image and the second image on the basis of the first vascular map and the second vascular map”), the two or more images including images obtained at differing times (Par. [0062] discloses “obtaining a first image of a retina or iris at a point in time; generating a first vascular map of the first image of the retina or the iris; obtaining a second image of the retina or the iris at a later point in time; generating a second vascular map of the second image of the retina or the iris”); detecting one or more pathology or indication of one or more pathology, disease or condition in the registered two or more images (“or” indicates a selection, only one of the options is the instant scope of the claim, the examiner selects “disease” which is disclosed in Par. [0062], which states “displaying at least one difference between the register first image and the second image to quantify a disease progression” indicating a detection of disease; Par. [0043] discloses “the ability to detect some changes in metabolic activity at the early stages of the disease provides the opportunity for much earlier detection of disease development”); locating the detected one or more pathology or indication of one or more pathology, disease or condition in a plurality of the two or more images (“or” indicates a selection, only one of the options is the instant scope of the claim, the examiner selects “disease” which is disclosed in Par. [0117], which states “the screen presents simultaneously two retinal images, which can be used to identify differences and anomalies”, moreover, Par. [0121] discloses “the factors linking both images can be locked such that both images can be changed simultaneously in magnification, location, wavelengths” indicating the registered images are used to find differences/anomalies based on locations of the two images); and quantifying the one or more pathology or indication of the one or more pathology or indication in a plurality of the two or more images (“or” indicates a selection, only one of the options is the instant scope of the claim, the examiner selects “the one or more pathology” which is disclosed in Par. [0062], which states “displaying at least one difference between the registered first image and the second image to quantify a disease progression”, moreover, Par. [0069] discloses “1. Pathology tabs: selects the display mode specific to a particular mode…age-related macular degeneration mode…”) to thereby detect the one or more pathology or indication of the one or more pathology, disease or condition progression (“or” indicates a selection, only one of the options is the instant scope of the claim, the examiner selects “condition progression” which is disclosed in Par. [0062], which states “displaying at least one difference between the registered first image and the second image to quantify a disease progression”, moreover, Par. [0030] discloses “disease detection can only occur once it has produced an anatomical change in the retina. In most conditions, the anatomical changes detected are irreversible and indicate an established progression of the disease”).
Regarding claim 3, Desgroseilliers explicitly teaches a computer program product for detecting one or more pathology or an indication of one or more pathology, disease or condition progression Abstract discloses “a method for quantifying disease progression through retinal health assessment and management”), the computer program product comprising: a computer usable medium and computer readable program code embodied on said computer usable medium for displaying data, the computer readable code including (Par. [0127] discloses “the machine-readable medium can contain various sets of instructions, code sequences, configuration information, or other data, which, when executed, cause a processor to performs steps in a method” indicating the use of a computer, which includes a computer program executed by a processor to perform the functions of the invention): computer readable program code devices (i) configured to cause the computer to register two or more retinal images (Par. [0062] discloses “registering the first image and the second image on the basis of the first vascular map and the second vascular map”), the two or more images including images obtained at differing times (Par. [0062] discloses “obtaining a first image of a retina or iris at a point in time; generating a first vascular map of the first image of the retina or the iris; obtaining a second image of the retina or the iris at a later point in time; generating a second vascular map of the second image of the retina or the iris”); computer readable program code devices (ii) configured to cause the computer to detect one or more pathology or indication of one or more pathology, disease or condition in the registered two or more images (“or” indicates a selection, only one of the options is the instant scope of the claim, the examiner selects “disease” which is disclosed in Par. [0062], which states “displaying at least one difference between the register first image and the second image to quantify a disease progression” indicating a detection of disease; Par. [0043] discloses “the ability to detect some changes in metabolic activity at the early stages of the disease provides the opportunity for much earlier detection of disease development”); computer readable program code devices (iii) configured to cause the computer to locate the detected one or more pathology or indication of one or more pathology, disease or condition in a plurality of the two or more images (“or” indicates a selection, only one of the options is the instant scope of the claim, the examiner selects “disease” which is disclosed in Par. [0117], which states “the screen presents simultaneously two retinal images, which can be used to identify differences and anomalies”, moreover, Par. [0121] discloses “the factors linking both images can be locked such that both images can be changed simultaneously in magnification, location, wavelengths” indicating the registered images are used to find differences/anomalies based on locations of the two images); and computer readable program code devices (iv) configured to cause the computer to quantify the one or more pathology or indication of the one or more pathology or indication in a plurality of the two or more images (“or” indicates a selection, only one of the options is the instant scope of the claim, the examiner selects “the one or more pathology” which is disclosed in Par. [0062], which states “displaying at least one difference between the registered first image and the second image to quantify a disease progression”, moreover, Par. [0069] discloses “1. Pathology tabs: selects the display mode specific to a particular mode…age-related macular degeneration mode…”) to thereby detect the one or more pathology or indication of the one or more pathology, disease or condition progression (“or” indicates a selection, only one of the options is the instant scope of the claim, the examiner selects “condition progression” which is disclosed in Par. [0062], which states “displaying at least one difference between the registered first image and the second image to quantify a disease progression”, moreover, Par. [0030] discloses “disease detection can only occur once it has produced an anatomical change in the retina. In most conditions, the anatomical changes detected are irreversible and indicate an established progression of the disease”).
Regarding claim 4, Desgroseilliers explicitly teaches the system of claim 1, further comprising providing one or more parameters of the quantified one or more pathology or indication of one or more pathology, disease or condition (“or” indicates a selection, only one of the options is the instant scope of the claim, the examiner selects “one or more parameters of the quantified one or more pathology” which is taught in Par. [0113] which discloses “in another example, the geometric parameter is the local deviation of the optical nerve cup from a smooth curve” indicating geometric parameter is used to determine the deviation/difference or anomalies).
Regarding claim 6, Desgroseilliers explicitly teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the image registration includes one or more of retinal blood vessel segmentation; vessel centerline computation; detecting and extracting parameters of branch points of the vessels; finding potential matched branch point lists among the two or more images; determining a best registration method; and applying a transformation matrix (“one or more of…and…” indicating a selection, only one of the options is the instant scope of the claim, the examiner selects “retinal blood vessel segmentation” which is taught in Par. [0103], which discloses “if the original data sets reveal any specific area of interest and demand further investigation,…one can remain in the General view, and select buttons to view oxygenation in the retina, drusen, vessel maps…” wherein region of interest of vessel mapping indicating a vessel mapping of regions, or vessel segmentation).
Regarding claim 7, Desgroseilliers explicitly teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the one or more pathology or indication of one or more pathology, disease or condition in the registered two or more images may include at least one of one or more drusen or one or more bright lesions in the retina (“or” indicates a selection, only one of the options is the instant scope of the claim, the examiner selects “disease…one or more drusen” which is taught in Par. [0118], which discloses “processes include the ability to isolate a vascular map and superimpose it upon a map showing the selected diseases such as the presence of drusen, regions of low oxygenation, etc.”).
Regarding claim 10, Desgroseilliers explicitly teaches the system of claim 1, wherein a same pathological feature or indication of pathology, disease or condition is found on a plurality of the two or more images (“or” indicates a selection, only one of the options is the instant scope of the claim, the examiner selects “disease” which is taught in Par. [0062], which discloses “registered first image and the second image to quantify a disease progression” wherein disease progression indicating that the disease is present in both the first and second images).
Regarding claim 11, Desgroseilliers explicitly teaches the system of claim 1, wherein one or more parameter may be at least one of extracted or provided that may be used in a report (“or” indicates a selection, the examiner selects “provided” which is taught in Par. [0114], which discloses “patient’s historic IOP measurements overlaid on the C/D ratios calculated”, and Par. [0015], which discloses “summary reports can be printed for patient referrals” indicating a report can be determined based on patient’s historic IOP measurements, C/D ratios provided, which are analogous to one or more parameter as claimed).
Regarding claim 13, Desgroseilliers explicitly teaches the system of claim 1, wherein each of the two or more images may include a retinal image (Par. [0062] discloses “quantifying disease progression through retinal health assessment…a registration method for multispectral retinal images”).
Regarding claim 14, Desgroseilliers explicitly teaches the system of claim 1, wherein each of the two or more images may be captured locally or received from one or more local or remote source (“or” indicates a selection, the examiner selects “locally” which is taught in Par. [0063], which discloses “different depths in the retina is collected by a high resolution camera” indicating the images are captured by a camera locally).
Regarding claim 15, Desgroseilliers explicitly teaches the system of claim 1, wherein at least one of drusen or bright lesions may be tracked (“or” indicates a selection, the examiner selects “drusen” which is taught in Par. [0118], which discloses “selected diseases such as the presence of drusen”, and Par. [0124], which discloses “disease progression charts”, therefore, indicating that there is a disease progression charts showing tracking of such disease information/data, wherein the disease being a drusen).
Regarding claim 17, Desgroseilliers explicitly teaches the system of claim 1, wherein at least one of one or more non-drusen features or non-bright lesion may be removed (“or” indicates a selection, only one of the options is the instant scope of the claim, the examiner selects “one or more non-drusen features” which is taught in Par. [0124], which discloses “measurement overlays are available to gauge the magnitude of disease areas. Extraneous information is removed whenever feasible to present as far as possible a simple, uncluttered presentation” indicating areas of the diseases with their extraneous information would be removed, or non-drusen features would be removed, since a disease is a drusen and extraneous information indicating outside or not essential information of the drusen, in other words, non-drusen; Par. [0118], which discloses “selected diseases such as the presence of drusen”).
Regarding claim 18, Desgroseilliers explicitly teaches the system of claim ,7 wherein detection of at least one of the one or more drusen or bright lesion includes combining two or more detection methods (“or” indicates a selection, only one of the options is the instant scope of the claim, the examiner selects “drusen” which is taught in Par. [0030], which discloses “retinal diseases are detected by an examination of the back of the eye…this inspection can be performed using a number of optical tools” indicating the detection of such disease [drusen] can be done through inspection which is done using a number of tools [detection methods]).
Regarding claim 20, Desgroseilliers explicitly teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the one or more pathology or an indication of one or more pathology, disease or condition progression (“or” indicates a selection, only one of the options is the instant scope of the claim, the examiner selects “disease” which is taught in [0062], which discloses “disease progression through retinal health assessment and management”) includes an ocular pathology or an indication of one or more ocular pathology, disease or condition progression (“or” indicates a selection, only one of the options is the instant scope of the claim, the examiner selects “disease progression” which is taught in [0062], which discloses “displaying at least one difference between the registered first image and the second image to quantify a disease progression”).
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 for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 5, 9 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Eric Desgroseilliers et. al. (“US 2010/0302507 A1”) in view of Gisli Hreinn Halldorsson et. al. (“US 2006/0276698 A1” hereinafter as “Halldorsson”).
Regarding claim 5, Desgroseilliers explicitly teaches the system of claim 1.
However, Desgroseilliers does not explicitly teach wherein the registering includes an automatic registration or a semi-automatic registration.
Halldorsson teaches wherein the registering includes an automatic registration or a semi-automatic registration (Par. [0028] discloses “method for automatic registration of multi-spectral images”, moreover Par. [0037] discloses “automatically evaluating oxygen metabolism of the optical nerve and retina…locating blood vessels in each of the multi-spectral images by, retrieving registered spectral images”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to combine the teaches of Desgroseilliers of having a system for detecting one or more pathology or an indication of one or more pathology, disease or condition progression, the system comprising: a processor configured to: register two or more retinal images, the two or more images including images obtained at differing times, with the teachings of Halldorsson of having wherein the registering includes an automatic registration or a semi-automatic registration.
Wherein having Desgroseilliers’s system for detecting one or more pathology or an indication of one or more pathology, disease or condition progression, the system comprising: a processor configured to: register two or more retinal images, the two or more images including images obtained at differing times, wherein the registering includes an automatic registration or a semi-automatic registration.
The motivation behind the modification would have been to have such method to quantify retinal data/information non-invasively and effectively, at the same time, perform image registration automatically and reliably for measuring retinal data/information. Since both Desgroseilliers and Halldorsson share the same endeavor of systems that perform retinal image assessment. Wherein Desgroseilliers’ system improves quantifying retinal data/information non-invasively and effectively, see Desgroseilliers’ Par. [0003], and Halldorsson’s system improves performing image registration automatically and reliably for measuring retinal data/information, see Halldorsson’s Par. [0011].
Regarding claim 9, Desgroseilliers explicitly teaches the system of claim 1.
However, Desgroseilliers does not explicitly teach wherein registration includes identifying a same or identical reference location of a retina in a plurality of the two or more by images.
Halldorsson teaches wherein registration includes identifying a same or identical reference location of a retina in a plurality of the two or more by images (“or” indicates a selection, therefore, only one of the options is the instant scope of the claim, the examiner selects “same” which is disclosed in Par. [0050], which discloses ”preprocessing stage were they are pair-wise registered together. The registration process is…to compute the information extracted from the images in the same coordinate system” wherein the same coordinate system is analogous to same reference location).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to combine the teaches of Desgroseilliers of having a system for detecting one or more pathology or an indication of one or more pathology, disease or condition progression, the system comprising: a processor configured to: register two or more retinal images, the two or more images including images obtained at differing times, with the teachings of Halldorsson of having wherein registration includes identifying a same or identical reference location of a retina in a plurality of the two or more by images.
Wherein having Desgroseilliers’s system for detecting one or more pathology or an indication of one or more pathology, disease or condition progression, the system comprising: a processor configured to: register two or more retinal images, the two or more images including images obtained at differing times, wherein registration includes identifying a same or identical reference location of a retina in a plurality of the two or more by images.
The motivation behind the modification would have been to have such method to quantify retinal data/information non-invasively and effectively, at the same time, perform image registration automatically and reliably for measuring retinal data/information. Since both Desgroseilliers and Halldorsson share the same endeavor of systems that perform retinal image assessment. Wherein Desgroseilliers’ system improves quantifying retinal data/information non-invasively and effectively, see Desgroseilliers’ Par. [0003], and Halldorsson’s system improves performing image registration automatically and reliably for measuring retinal data/information, see Halldorsson’s Par. [0011].
Regarding claim 16, Desgroseilliers explicitly teaches the system of claim 1.
However, Desgroseilliers does not explicitly teach wherein registration includes four modules.
Halldorsson teaches wherein registration includes four modules (Par. [0037] discloses “registering set of multi-spectral images, by, binarizing the multi-spectral image, find the all the border regions of each image…equalize the orientation of each spectral image by rotating the spectral image, edge detect each spectral image, estimate the translation between the spectral images” which indicates the four processes [analogous to modules] that make up the registration process, which includes binarization process, equalizing process, edge detection process, translation estimation process).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to combine the teaches of Desgroseilliers of having a system for detecting one or more pathology or an indication of one or more pathology, disease or condition progression, the system comprising: a processor configured to: register two or more retinal images, the two or more images including images obtained at differing times, with the teachings of Halldorsson of having wherein registration includes four modules.
Wherein having Desgroseilliers’s system for detecting one or more pathology or an indication of one or more pathology, disease or condition progression, the system comprising: a processor configured to: register two or more retinal images, the two or more images including images obtained at differing times, wherein registration includes four modules.
The motivation behind the modification would have been to have such method to quantify retinal data/information non-invasively and effectively, at the same time, perform image registration automatically and reliably for measuring retinal data/information. Since both Desgroseilliers and Halldorsson share the same endeavor of systems that perform retinal image assessment. Wherein Desgroseilliers’ system improves quantifying retinal data/information non-invasively and effectively, see Desgroseilliers’ Par. [0003], and Halldorsson’s system improves performing image registration automatically and reliably for measuring retinal data/information, see Halldorsson’s Par. [0011].
Claims 8 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Eric Desgroseilliers et. al. (“US 2010/0302507 A1”) in view of Yali Jia et. al., (“US 2017/0119242 A1” hereinafter as “Jia”).
Regarding claim 8, Desgroseilliers explicitly teaches the system of claim 7.
However, Desgroseilliers does not explicitly teach wherein at least one of the one or more drusen or one or more bright lesions is detected using a segmentation and quantification method.
Jia teaches wherein at least one of the one or more drusen or one or more bright lesions is detected using a segmentation and quantification method (“or” indicates a selection, only one of the options is the instant scope of the claim, the examiner selects “drusen” for mapping, Par. [0081] discloses “large drusen caused segmentation failure”, Par. [0112] discloses “method also receives at segmented boundary information associated with structural OCT scan received…this retina layer segmentation information can be provided…”, Par. [0114], which discloses “several options exist for visualizing or quantifying OCT angiography results…retinal layer visualized, the quantified properties calculated” indicating the drusen determined through layer segmentation and quantification).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to combine the teaches of Desgroseilliers of having a system for detecting one or more pathology or an indication of one or more pathology, disease or condition progression, the system comprising: a processor configured to: register two or more retinal images, the two or more images including images obtained at differing times, with the teachings of Jia of having wherein at least one of the one or more drusen or one or more bright lesions is detected using a segmentation and quantification method.
Wherein having Desgroseilliers’s system for detecting one or more pathology or an indication of one or more pathology, disease or condition progression, the system comprising: a processor configured to: register two or more retinal images, the two or more images including images obtained at differing times, wherein at least one of the one or more drusen or one or more bright lesions is detected using a segmentation and quantification method.
The motivation behind the modification would have been to have such method to quantify retinal data/information non-invasively and effectively, at the same time, provides robust approach for facilitating analysis and visualization of ocular abnormalities. Since both Desgroseilliers and Jia share the same endeavor of systems that perform retinal image assessment. Wherein Desgroseilliers’ system improves quantifying retinal data/information non-invasively and effectively, see Desgroseilliers’ Par. [0003], and Jia’s system improves providing robust approach for facilitating analysis and visualization of ocular abnormalities n, see Jia’s Par. [0005-0006].
Regarding claim 19, Desgroseilliers explicitly teaches the system of claim 1.
However, Desgroseilliers does not explicitly teach wherein quantification includes a number of computations from two drusen-segmented images.
Jia teaches wherein quantification includes a number of computations from two drusen-segmented images (Par. [0114] discloses “the quantified properties calculated can include, for example, vessel density, nonperfusion or capillary dropout area…” indicating the quantification includes a number of calculations, moreover, Par. [0089] discloses “segmented planes used for slab segmentation. Presenting the structural and flow information simultaneously clarifies the anatomic relationship between the vessels and the tissue planes” indicating the quantification is based on a plurality of segmented planes [analogous to the recited drusen-segmented images]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to combine the teaches of Desgroseilliers of having a system for detecting one or more pathology or an indication of one or more pathology, disease or condition progression, the system comprising: a processor configured to: register two or more retinal images, the two or more images including images obtained at differing times, with the teachings of Jia of having wherein quantification includes a number of computations from two drusen-segmented images.
Wherein having Desgroseilliers’s system for detecting one or more pathology or an indication of one or more pathology, disease or condition progression, the system comprising: a processor configured to: register two or more retinal images, the two or more images including images obtained at differing times, wherein quantification includes a number of computations from two drusen-segmented images.
The motivation behind the modification would have been to have such method to quantify retinal data/information non-invasively and effectively, at the same time, provides robust approach for facilitating analysis and visualization of ocular abnormalities. Since both Desgroseilliers and Jia share the same endeavor of systems that perform retinal image assessment. Wherein Desgroseilliers’ system improves quantifying retinal data/information non-invasively and effectively, see Desgroseilliers’ Par. [0003], and Jia’s system improves providing robust approach for facilitating analysis and visualization of ocular abnormalities n, see Jia’s Par. [0005-0006].
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Eric Desgroseilliers et. al. (“US 2010/0302507 A1”) in view of Daniel L. Rubin et. al. (“US 2016/0174830 A1” hereinafter as “Rubin”).
Regarding claim 12, Desgroseilliers explicitly teaches the system of claim 7.
However, Desgroseilliers does not explicitly teach wherein at least one of the one or more drusen or one or one or more bright lesions may be tracked in a longitudinal study to observe disease or condition progression or a predisposition thereto.
Rubin teaches wherein at least one of the one or more drusen or one or one or more bright lesions (“or” indicates a selection, therefore, only one of the options is the instant scope of the claim, the examiner selects “drusen” which is taught in Par. [0060], which discloses “the method to extract a large number of features from drusen present in SD-OCT images to comprehensively characterize the AMD disease process and that can be used in predicting disease progression”) may be tracked in a longitudinal study (Par. [0061] discloses “this set of features is extracted from the SD-OCT cube of each patient and eye at each clinical visit, corresponding to an eye examination in a particular date and time…value in a single image representing the highest length of a druse in a longitudinal scan” wherein the drusen progression indicating a tracking, and the longitudinal scan is analogous to the recited longitudinal study; moreover, Par. [0029] discloses “the process proceeds to an output that may be communicated to a physician…further tracked over time”) to observe disease or condition progression or a predisposition thereto (“or” indicates a selection, therefore, only one of the options is the instant scope of the claim, the examiner selects “disease progression” which is taught in Par. [0060], which discloses “the method to extract a large number of features from drusen present in SD-OCT images to comprehensively characterize the AMD disease process and that can be used in predicting disease progression”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to combine the teaches of Desgroseilliers of having a system for detecting one or more pathology or an indication of one or more pathology, disease or condition progression, the system comprising: a processor configured to: register two or more retinal images, the two or more images including images obtained at differing times, with the teachings of Rubin of having wherein at least one of the one or more drusen or one or one or more bright lesions may be tracked in a longitudinal study to observe disease or condition progression or a predisposition thereto.
Wherein having Desgroseilliers’s system for detecting one or more pathology or an indication of one or more pathology, disease or condition progression, the system comprising: a processor configured to: register two or more retinal images, the two or more images including images obtained at differing times, wherein at least one of the one or more drusen or one or one or more bright lesions may be tracked in a longitudinal study to observe disease or condition progression or a predisposition thereto.
The motivation behind the modification would have been to have such method to quantify retinal data/information non-invasively and effectively, at the same time, provide methods for image analysis in an optical-coherence image efficiently. Since both Desgroseilliers and Rubin share the same endeavor of systems that perform retinal image assessment. Wherein Desgroseilliers’ system improves quantifying retinal data/information non-invasively and effectively, see Desgroseilliers’ Par. [0003], and Rubin’s system improves on methods for image analysis in an optical-coherence image efficiently s, see Rubin’s Par. [0003].
Pertinent Prior Art(s)
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Bressler, Neil et. al., “US 2011/0242306 A1”, discloses a system and method for automated detection of age related macular degeneration and other retinal abnormalities which may have a retinal scanner capable of obtaining retinal data from a subject. The retinal scanner may be coupled to a central processing unit (CPU) which may have memory storing CPU-executable instructions which may detect retinal abnormalities. When the CPU receives retinal data from the retinal scanner, the system may perform CPU-executable instructions for detecting retinal abnormalities. The system may analyze the retinal data to determine one or more healthy areas and, based on the analyzed healthy area, the system may detect abnormalities in the retinal data.
Skuban, Aleksandar et. al., “US 2024/0252497 A1”, discloses methods for treating geographic atrophy secondary to age-related macular degeneration (AMD) and intermediate AMD in a subject. The methods include administering to the subject a therapeutically effective amount of a small molecule complement factor D inhibitor.
Soliz, Peter et. al., “US 7668351 B1”, discloses medical images are automatically segmented by customizing the morphological segmentation of features identified in the image based upon statistical analysis of the features within each region to be analyzed. The statistical description of the features, as reported through a feature vector, informs the system as to which input variables to select for further segmentation analysis for features residing within the region of the image analyzed. By customizing the automatic segmentation analysis to produce an enhanced image, features within the image are characterized more efficiently and precisely. False positive identification of lesions are minimized without sacrifice of true positive identifications.
Campbell, Melanie Crombie Williams, “US 2013/0208245 A1”, discloses methods to image amyloid beta in the retina of the eye in such a way as to diagnose and potentially treat Alzheimer's disease. The preferred apparatus to perform the image and treatment is described. The basic idea is to use an imaging method to characterize the depth location of amyloid beta (hereafter referred to as Aβ) in the retina, to classify and characterize the type of deposit, to quantify the amount present and thereby to diagnose Alzheimer's disease and stage the disease. The methods describe herein include image guided treatment of Aβ deposits in the retina.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHUONG HAU CAI whose telephone number is (571)272-9424. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 am - 5:00pm.
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, Chineyere Wills-Burns can be reached at (571) 272-9752. 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.
/PHUONG HAU CAI/Examiner, Art Unit 2673
/CHINEYERE WILLS-BURNS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2673
Prosecution Insights