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 .
Oath/Declaration
The receipt of the Oath/Declaration is acknowledged.
Drawings
The drawing(s) filed on 12/17/2024 are accepted by the Examiner.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/17/2024 is in compliance with the provisions on 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner.
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, 6-7 and 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 2019/0099145 A1) (hereinafter referred to as Kim) in view of Oshiki et al. (US 2007/0244393 A1) (hereinafter referred to as Oshiki).
Regarding claim 1, Kim teaches a medical image processing apparatus (Kim, Fig. 1, computing system 110) comprising:
processing circuitry (Kim, Fig. 1, receiving module 114) configured to acquire a first medical image collected by
predetermined imaging for an imaging part of a subject ([Kim, 0041], [0043]: The receiving module 114 may receive a CT or CTA image of an examinee…”; “In a first embodiment… a non-contrast enhanced CT image is set as a main medical image. In this case, the processor 112 registers a first medical image (a CT image)…”) and a second medical image that is collected by imaging different from the predetermined imaging and includes a blood vessel related to the imaging part (King, [0047], [0048], [0053]: “The processor 112 may receive the CTA image (a second medical image) of the examinee…”; “the CTA image of the patient…” ),
detect a disease candidate region indicating a candidate for a region of a disease at the imaging part based on the first medical image ([0043], [0045]: “identifying a candidate blood vessel region from the CT image…”; “The processor 112 acquires a volume… as a first thrombosis candidate region.” The processor identifies a candidate blood vessel region from the CT image, then acquires a first thrombosis candidate region and second thrombosis candidate region.),
and the second medical image that are superimposed on the first medical image (Kim, [0015], [0044], [0057], [0058]: “displaying a second medical image… in parallel with the first medical image”; “visualize the second thrombosis candidate region by assigning a visual effect…”; “visualize the thrombosis-occluded region… in the first medical image registered to the second medical image.” Kim discloses visualization of the thrombosis candidate region on the CT image and also parallel display / cross-linking of CT and CTA images, but not the exact claimed superimposition of the second medical image and certainty-related disease region on the first image.).
However, Kim does not teach detect a constriction part related to constriction of the blood vessel based on the second medical image, and
estimate certainty of the disease for the disease candidate region based on the disease candidate region and the constriction part; and
a display configured to display the region of the disease related to the certainty.
The reference Oshiki teaches an imaging processing apparatus and process that detects a constriction part related to constriction of the blood vessel based on the second medical image (Oshiki, Fig 3, [0008], [0119]–[0124]: extract luminal region and vascular tissue region; compute constriction rate. Oshiki expressly discloses measuring the rate of constriction of a blood vessel using the luminal region and vascular tissue region in the image.), and
estimates certainty of the disease for the disease candidate region based on the disease candidate region and the constriction part (Oshiki, [0130]–[0135]: “…has within it an average velocity computing section which figures out from the Doppler signal inputted to it the average velocity of the blood flow in the blood vessel in the diagnosed region …”); and
a display configured to display the region of the disease related to the certainty (Oshiki, [0130]–[0135]) .
These arts are analogous since they are both related to medical imaging devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to modify the invention of Kim with the detecting a constriction part related to constriction of the blood vessel based on the second medical image, and estimating certainty of the disease for the disease candidate region based on the disease candidate region and the constriction part; and
a displaying configured to display the region of the disease related to the certainty as seen in Oshiki to more accurately measure the rate of constriction of a blood vessel thereby providing an image diagnosing support method and apparatus by which particularly the region of an organ or the like can be appropriately extracted when displaying an image in the same region of an object to be examined obtained by using a medical imaging apparatus (Oshiki [0011]).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Kim and Oshiki teaches the medical image processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the first medical image and the second medical image are images obtained by imaging the subject at different timings (Oshiki, [0007], [0107]-[0109], [0188]-[0191]: Oshiki expressly teaches that the plurality of medical images may be obtained at different times, including embodiments where one image is acquired in real time and another is acquired in the past or at a different time.).
Regarding 7, the combination of Kim and Oshiki teaches the medical image processing apparatus according to claim 1, and also teaches wherein the first medical image is a diffusion weighted image (Kim, [0004]: “Computer tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) are used to diagnose a stroke.”),
and
the second medical image is a magnetic resonance angiography image (Kim, [0004]: “Meanwhile, magnetic resonance angiography (MRA), computed tomography angiography (CTA), etc. using a contrast agent are used to focus on a cerebral blood vessel where a stroke occurs.”, [0038]: “The medical image diagnostic apparatus 130 refers to a CT scanner, an X-ray machine, an MRI scanner, and/or the like, and acquires a CT, CTA, MRI, and/or MRA image, and/or the like from an examinee.”).
Claims 13 and 14 are rejected for the same reasons as claim 1.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 2019/0099145 A1) (hereinafter referred to as Kim) in view of Oshiki et al. (US 2007/0244393 A1) (hereinafter referred to as Oshiki) and further in view of Toshiba Medical Systems Corporation (JP 5844093 B2) (hereinafter referred to as Toshiba).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Kim and Oshiki teaches the medical image processing apparatus according to claim 1, but does not expressly teach wherein, in a case in which the constriction part overlaps the disease candidate region, the certainty is higher as compared with a case in which the constriction part does not overlap the disease candidate region.
The reference Toshiba teaches an imaging processing apparatus and process that wherein, in a case in which the constriction part overlaps the disease candidate region (Toshiba, Device Configuration Section, [1] Paragraph 29 – [2] Paragraph 2 – Paragraph 5: Toshiba describes the overlap rate calculation unit 61 and the calculation unit 62, which calculate an ischemia participation rate using the overlap rate between lesion-dominated region data and ischemic region data.), the certainty is higher as compared with a case in which the constriction part does not overlap the disease candidate region (Toshiba, Device Configuration Section, [2] Paragraph 5: Toshiba describes “ischemia participation rate” calculated from the overlap rate and stenosis rate. Toshiba teaches that the calculated diagnostic metric increases when overlap is greater. This reads on a certainty score that becomes greater with greater overlap.).
These arts are analogous since they are all related to medical imaging devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to further modify the invention of Kim and Oshiki to include wherein, in a case in which the constriction part overlaps the disease candidate region, the certainty is higher as compared with a case in which the constriction part does not overlap the disease candidate region as seen in Toshiba to provide a medical image diagnostic apparatus and a medical image processing apparatus that generates and displays functional image data as seen in Toshiba in the Background-Art Section, Paragraph 4.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 2019/0099145 A1) (hereinafter referred to as Kim) in view of Oshiki et al. (US 2007/0244393 A1) (hereinafter referred to as Oshiki) and further in view of Mitsuo Oe (EP 0366075 B1) (hereinafter referred to as Oe).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Kim and Oshiki teaches the medical image processing apparatus according to claim 1, but does not expressly teach wherein the processing circuitry transmits the second medical image to an X-ray blood vessel photographing apparatus to align the second medical image and a fluoroscopic image of an imaging part of the subject and superimpose the second medical image on the fluoroscopic image.
The reference Oe teaches an imaging processing apparatus and process that includes wherein the processing circuitry transmits the second medical image (Oe, The edge image data stored in the third image memory 32 is read out to the summer 34.) to an X-ray blood vessel photographing apparatus to align the second medical image and a fluoroscopic image of an imaging part of the subject (Oe, Description, Paragraph 13: The blood vessel image is added to the fluoroscopic image to form a road map image and the image of the blood vessel and the fluoroscopic image are superposed on each other. The subject 12 is imaged by X rays, and the fluoroscopic image is of the subject’s blood vessel region. ) and superimpose the second medical image on the fluoroscopic image (Oe, “the image of the blood vessel is superposed on the fluoroscopic image” and “the road map image producing means… summing the fluoroscopic images and the edge image”) (Oe, Description, Paragraph 18).
These arts are analogous since they are all related to medical imaging devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to further modify the invention of Kim and Oshiki to include wherein the processing circuitry transmits the second medical image to an X-ray blood vessel photographing apparatus to align the second medical image and a fluoroscopic image of an imaging part of the subject and superimpose the second medical image on the fluoroscopic image as seen in Oe to provide an operator an easier recognizable fluoroscopic image by superimposing the edge image and the fluoroscopic image on each other so the catheter is easier to recognize as seen in Oe, Description, Paragraph 6.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-5, 8 and 10-12 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected
base claims, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The claims would be allowable for the following reasons:
Regarding claim 3, none of the known prior art discloses wherein, the processing circuitry estimates that the disease candidate region is false positive as the certainty in a case in which a size of an overlapping region of the constriction part and the disease candidate region is smaller than a predetermined value, the processing circuitry estimates that the disease candidate region is non-false positive as the certainty in a case in which the size of the overlapping region is equal to or larger than the predetermined value, and the display displays a boundary line of the region of the disease corresponding to the false positive and a boundary line of the region of the disease corresponding to the non-false positive in different display modes.
Regarding claim 4, none of the known prior art discloses wherein the constriction part is a region in which blood vessels on a downstream side of a position of the constriction are distributed, and the region of the disease is included in the constriction part.
Claim 5 is objected to because it depends on claim 4.
Claims 8, 10 and 12 are objected to because it depends on claim 5.
Claim 11 is objected to because it depends on claim 10.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUPERVISORY PATENT EXAMINER TWYLER HASKINS whose telephone number is (571)272-7406. The SUPERVISORY PATENT EXAMINER TWYLER HASKINS can normally be reached Mon- Thursday: 7:30 am-4:30 pm.
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:/Awwww.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, GROUP DIRECTOR JAMES KRAMER can be reached at (571) 272-6783. 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:/Awww.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https:/Awww.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.
/TWYLER L HASKINS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2639
Prosecution Insights