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
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 1/16/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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)(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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 5,6 ,9, and 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sarkis et al (US20160133022).
Regarding claim 1, Sarkis discloses an image processing device comprising:
a processor (para. [0034]),
wherein the processor performs first processing of acquiring an offset (para. [0118], equation 11) from a reference point of a structure included in an image (para. [0029], [0054]) to a candidate point of a target point related to the reference point (para. [0115], [0118], equation 11), and
repeatedly performs second processing of acquiring a new offset to a new candidate point of the target point (para. [0117]-[0118]) in which the candidate point of the target point derived based on the offset is used as a new reference point (para. [0118]-[0120], equation 11), N times (N≥1) until a predetermined condition is satisfied (para. [0121]), to derive the target point ([0118], equation 11).
Regarding claim 2, Sarkis discloses an image processing device wherein the processor analyzes the image to derive the reference point (para. [0005], [0044], [0054]).
Regarding claim 5, Sarkis discloses an image processing device wherein the predetermined condition is a condition in which the N reaches a predetermined number of times or an absolute value of the new offset is less than a predetermined threshold value (para. [0119]-[0120]).
Regarding claim 6, Sarkis discloses an image processing wherein the reference point and the target point related to the reference point are located in the same structure (fig. 8; para. [0118]).
Regarding claim 9, Sarkis discloses an image processing wherein the processor performs the first processing and the second processing by using a derivation model that has been trained through learning via offset regression (fig. 15; para. [0117]-[0120]).
Regarding claims 13-14, the claims recite similar subject matter as claim 1 and are rejected for the same reasons as stated above.
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) 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sarkis et al (US20160133022) in view of Li et al (US20200342209).
Regarding claim 3, Sarkis fails to teach an image processing device wherein the processor uses a derivation model that has been trained through learning to derive the reference point from the image, to derive the reference point.
However Li teaches uses a derivation model (claim 1) that has been trained through learning (claim 10) to derive a reference point from the image (claim 1, landmark), to derive the reference point (claim 1, landmark).
Therefore taking the combined teachings of Sarkis and Li as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to incorporate the features of Li into the apparatus of Sarkis. The motivation to combine Li and Sarkis would be to achieve fine-level alignment while remaining computationally efficient (para. [0005] of Li).
Regarding claim 4, the modified device of Sarkis teaches an image processing device wherein the learning is learning via heat map regression (para. [0054], claims 2 and 6 of Li), coordinate point regression, or offset regression.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sarkis et al (US20160133022) in view of Fieselmann et al (US20230083501).
Regarding claim 7, Sarkis fails to teach an image processing device wherein the target point has a feature that is relatively ambiguous as compared to the reference point.
However Fieselmann teaches wherein a target point has a feature that is relatively ambiguous as compared to a reference point (para. [0014], [0037]).
Therefore taking the combined teachings of Sarkis and Fieselmann as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to incorporate the features of Fieselmann into the apparatus of Sarkis. The motivation to combine Fieselmann and Sarkis would be to increase robustness (para. [0061] of Fieselmann).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sarkis et al (US20160133022) in view of Brett et al (US20090297012).
Regarding claim 8, Sarkis fails to teach an image processing wherein the reference point is located inside the structure, and the target point is located on a boundary of the structure.
However Brett teaches wherein a reference point is located inside a structure (para. [0057]), and a target point is located on a boundary of the structure (para. [0054]).
Therefore taking the combined teachings of Sarkis and Brett as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to incorporate the features of Brett into the apparatus of Sarkis. The motivation to combine Brett and Sarkis would be to automate the analysis of digitized radiographs for research (para. [0003] of Brett).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sarkis et al (US20160133022) in view of Davison et al ("Landmark localisation in radiographs using weighted heatmap displacement voting." International workshop on computational methods and clinical applications in musculoskeletal imaging. Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2018, pages 73-84, retrieved from the Internet on 8/9/2026).
Regarding claim 10, Sarkis fails to teach an image processing device wherein the learning is learning in which a weight for an offset loss is larger as a position is closer to the target point.
However Davison teaches learning in which a weight for an offset loss is larger as a position is closer to a target point (section 3.1, Training. Gaussian centered implies the value increases).
Therefore taking the combined teachings of Sarkis and Davison as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to incorporate the features of Davison into the apparatus of Sarkis. The motivation to combine Davison and Sarkis would be to accurately locate landmarks (section 4 of Davison).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sarkis et al (US20160133022) in view of Ulasen et al (US20220405954).
Regarding claim 11, Sarkis fails to teach an image processing device wherein the learning is learning in which an offset loss is derived only in a predetermined range around the reference point and a predetermined range around the target point.
However Ulasen teaches learning in which an offset loss is derived only in a predetermined range around a reference point and a predetermined range around a target point (para. [0041]-[0043]).
Therefore taking the combined teachings of Sarkis and Ulasen as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to incorporate the features of Ulasen into the apparatus of Sarkis. The motivation to combine Ulasen and Sarkis would be to allow for a proper determination of environment/location dimensions even when a camera perspective of the input image does not match any of the camera perspectives of the training images used to train the neural network (para. [0027] of Ulasen).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sarkis et al (US20160133022) in view of Guo et al (US20230154040).
Regarding claim 12, Sarkis fails to teach an image processing device wherein the learning is learning in which a deviation between a position of the candidate point of the target point repeatedly derived during the learning and a ground truth position of the target point is used as a further loss.
However Guo teaches learning in which a deviation between a position of a candidate point of a target point repeatedly derived during the learning and a ground truth position of the target point is used as a further loss (para. [0028]-[0030]).
Therefore taking the combined teachings of Sarkis and Guo as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to incorporate the features of Guo into the apparatus of Sarkis. The motivation to combine Guo and Sarkis would be to enhance an accuracy of a prediction of landmark coordinates in a face image (para. [0052] of Guo).
Related Art
Bhat et al (US20170372505) – see fig. 30; para. [0101]
Miao et al (US20230245329) – see figs. 4-5; para. [0050], [0065]-[0067]
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LEON VIET Q NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-1185. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 11AM-7PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Gregory Morse can be reached at 571-272-3838. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/LEON VIET Q NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2663
Prosecution Insights