DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 1-2, 5-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morita (US 20170086770 A1), and further in view of Masuzawa (US 20060228012 A1).
RE claim 1, Morita teaches An image processing device (Fig 1, abstract) comprising:
a processor that performs image processing on a plurality of slice images which are output from a tomography apparatus and which represent an axial cross section orthogonal to a body axis of a subject, wherein the processor acquires the plurality of slice images (Figs 1-2, abstract, [0077]-[0078], [0103]), and generates a tomographic image by using a function having pixel values of the plurality of slice images as parameters (Figs 12, 17-19, [0034], [0103], [0110]-[0116], [0125]).
Morita is silent RE: representing a designated cross section.
However Masuzawa teaches in Fig 3, [0021], [0070]-[0071], [0108] etc in order to reduce processing and storage requirement from the obtained slice images.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include in Morita a system and method generating the slice images representing a designated cross section, as suggested by Masuzawa, in order to reduce processing and storage requirement from the obtained slice images and thereby increasing system effectiveness and user experience.
RE claim 2, Morita as modified by Masuzawa teaches wherein, in a case in which the tomography apparatus outputs the plurality of slice images during imaging, the processor starts processing of generating the tomographic image during the imaging by using the plurality of slice images (Morita 0071]- [0072]).
RE claim 5, Morita as modified by Masuzawa teaches wherein, in a case in which a body axis direction of the subject is a Z axis direction and two directions defining a cross section orthogonal to the body axis direction are an X axis direction and a Y axis direction, the function includes an isotropic data derivation function for deriving isotropic data as a pixel value of a pixel in which a resolution is made isotropic in the X axis direction, the Y axis direction, and the Z axis direction, and the processor generates the tomographic image based on the isotropic data (Morita Figs 14-19, [0034], [0103], [0110]-[0116], [0125] and Masuzawa Fig [0009]).
RE claim 6, Morita as modified by Masuzawa teaches wherein the cross section of the tomographic image is any one of an axial cross section, a sagittal cross section, or a coronal cross section (Morita 1-2, 14, [0065] and Masuzawa Fig 3, [0014]).
RE claim 7, Morita as modified by Masuzawa teaches wherein the processor receives designation of a slab thickness as a thickness of the tomographic image, and generates the tomographic image by performing weighting in accordance with the slab thickness (Morita [0094], [0101], Masuzawa Fig 3, [0021], [0048] wherein the weighting can equally be applied in accordance with the slab thickness in order to emphasize the selected thickness areas).
RE claim 8, Morita as modified by Masuzawa teaches wherein, in a case in which a body axis direction of the subject is a Z axis direction, a width direction of a cross section orthogonal to the body axis direction is an X axis direction, and a height direction is a Y axis direction, the function includes a pixel value derivation function for deriving a pixel value of a tilt cross section tilted by rotating the axial cross section of the slice image about an X axis, and the processor generates a tilt image that is the tomographic image of the tilt cross section by using the pixel value derivation function (Morita Figs 14-19, [0034], [0103], [0110]-[0116], [0125] and Masuzawa Fig [0107]- [0108]).
RE claim 9, Morita as modified by Masuzawa teaches wherein, in a case in which a plurality of the tilt images arranged in the Z axis direction are generated, heights of pixels of the plurality of tilt images in the Y axis direction are aligned (Morita Figs 14-19, [0027], [0034], and Masuzawa Fig [0107]- [0108]).
RE claim 10, Morita as modified by Masuzawa teaches wherein the processor receives designation of a slab thickness as a thickness of the tilt image, and generates the tilt image by performing weighting in accordance with the designated slab thickness (Morita [0094], [0101], Masuzawa Fig 3, [0021], [0048] wherein the weighting can equally be applied in accordance with the slab thickness in order to emphasize the selected thickness areas).
Claim 11 recites limitations similar in scope with limitations of claim 1 as method and therefore rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 12 recites limitations similar in scope with limitations of claim 1 and therefore rejected under the same rationale. In addition Morita teaches A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a operation program of an image processing device including a processor ([0073]).
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morita as modified by Masuzawa, and further in view of Karino (US 20170091919 A1).
RE claim 3, Morita as modified by Masuzawa teaches wherein the function is created in accordance with an imaging condition of the tomography apparatus (Morita abstract, [0076], [0083] , [0112] etc).
Morita as modified by Masuzawa is silent RE: the imaging condition including at least a slice interval of the slice images.
However Karino teaches in [0006] as typical for obtaining temporal slice images.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include in Morita as modified by Masuzawa a system and method including at least a slice interval of the slice images, as suggested by Karino, in order to effectively object the slice images and thereby ensuring system effectiveness and user experience.
RE claim 4, Morita as modified by Masuzawa and Karino teaches wherein the processor acquires the imaging condition to create the function before the tomography apparatus starts the imaging (Morita abstract, [0076], [0083] , [0112] etc wherein the function is predefined that is applied to determine the values).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. (see attached 892)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SULTANA MARCIA ZALALEE whose telephone number is (571)270-1411. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday 8:00am-4:30pm.
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, Kent Chang can be reached at (571)272-7667. 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.
/Sultana M Zalalee/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2614
Prosecution Insights