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 .
Priority
The instant application claims priority to and benefit of Chinese Application Nos. CN202211213847.9 and CN202211215151.X, both filed on 09/30/2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (“IDS”) filed on 04/10/2025, 07/29/2025, and 05/13/2026 was reviewed and the listed references were noted.
Drawings
The 13 pages of drawings have been considered and placed on record in the file.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-6, 8-10, 13-14, 18, 20-27 are currently pending. Claims 7, 11-12, 15-17, 19, and 28-39 are canceled.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 Single Reference
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:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-3 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Brockway et al. (US-2014/0086464).
Consider Claim 1, Brockway teaches “A system, comprising: at least one storage medium including a set of instructions; at least one processor in communication with the at least one storage medium, wherein when executing the set of instructions, the at least one processor is directed to cause the system to perform operations including:” (Brockway; [0013]; “ For example, the computer device may have two or more of each of these components, e.g., two or more processors, image database/memories, I/O interfaces, and/or user interface modules.”) “(Brockway; [0004]; “ In one example, the method may include receiving at least a first set of images, providing a first registration, providing a display, displaying a first image on said display, providing a user interface, providing a second registration, and displaying a second image in said user interface.”) “including multiple registration relationships each of which is of at least two of the multiple images; and” (Brockway; [0030]; “As discussed further herein, the overlay may display another image, including but not limited to a secondary image, a blended image, a registration or an image after applying a registration to the image, including but not limited to a deformable registration and a rigid local registration, an image representing properties or aspects of a registration, an image that includes a checker display including at least a portion of an image or a registration, an overlay that includes vector renderings which indicate direction and magnitude of registration displacements, an image that includes a heat map display indicating a difference between two or more registrations, an image that includes a subtraction display indicating a difference between two or more images, or another type of image or overlay which displays an aspect of at least one registration or image, an aspect of a comparison between two or more registrations, or an aspect of a comparison between two or more images.”) “displaying at least a portion of the multiple registration relationships on a user interface, wherein one of the multiple registration relationships presents at least one of a registration mode, a registration direction, or a reference image for registration between at least two of the multiple images.” (Brockway; [0004]; “ …providing a display, displaying a first image on said display, providing a user interface, providing a second registration, and displaying a second image in said user interface.”).
The first embodiment of Brockway does not explicitly disclose “obtaining multiple images”; however, in another embodiment, Brockway teaches “obtaining multiple images;” (Brockway; [0014]; “In another embodiment, the plurality of images may be used for two dimensional analysis.”). Accordingly, before the effective filing date of the instant application, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the two embodiment from Brockway to further input multiple images into the system. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine the two embodiment of Brockway to create a registered system of a range of images for ease of search and output multiple related images for the user. Accordingly, the combination of the embodiments of Brockway discloses the invention of Claim 1.
Consider Claim 2, the combination of Brockway teaches “The system of claim 1, wherein the operations further include: obtaining a user operation inputted by a user via the user interface; and” (Brockway; [0033]; “As discussed above, a user viewing the second image 306A can better evaluate the best fit local rigid registration on a point by point basis dynamically, e.g., continuously on the fly….For example, a user may review the second image 306A close to the localization point 308 and determine that the best fit local rigid registration has an acceptable quality. Further review of the second image closer to the square perimeter of the localization region or neighborhood 310 or even the spyglass 304A may illustrate that some of these locations have unacceptable quality, e.g., the local rigid registration may not acceptably align the source image with the target image.”) “adjusting the registration relationship model based on the user operation, wherein adjustment of the registration relationship model includes at least one of modifying at least one of the multiple registration relationships;” (Brockway; [0033]; “As discussed below, these peripheral mismatches may be in fact acceptable if the user moves the localization (point) to the previously designated unacceptable quality location and the new best fit local rigid registration displays an image having an acceptable quality registration.”) “adding a registration relationship of at least two of the multiple images; or deleting a registration relationship of at least two of the multiple images.” (Brockway; [0033]; “However, after the user moves the localization point 308 close to the second region 316A, the image registration engine/algorithm will rerun (for every move of the localization point) and the user will again determine whether the updated best lit local rigid registration displayed in the second image 306A has an acceptable quality. As discussed below, this checking of other locations can be rerun as many times as the user requires to satisfy a quality requirement.”; Examiner notes the deletion of a registration relations is interpreted through the rerun on the registration algorithm in Brockway which registers relationships again if the user is not satisfied and deletes the unacceptable registration.)
Consider Claim 3, the combination of Brockway teaches “The system of claim 2, wherein the modifying at least one of the multiple registration relationships includes: changing at least one of the registration mode, the registration direction, the reference image for registration, or an image to be registered in the at least one of the multiple registration relationships.” (Brockway; [0033]; “ However, after the user moves the localization point 308 close to the second region 316A, the image registration engine/algorithm will rerun (for every move of the localization point) and the user will again determine whether the updated best lit local rigid registration displayed in the second image 306A has an acceptable quality. As discussed below, this checking of other locations can be rerun as many times as the user requires to satisfy a quality requirement.”)
Consider Claim 8, the combination of Brockway teaches “The system of claim 1, wherein the reference image is highlighted on the user interface.” (Brockway; Fig. 3A-D (See image below).
PNG
media_image1.png
799
646
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brockway et al. (US-2014/0086464) in view of Gao (CN 106097347 A with publishing date of 11/09/2016).
Consider Claim 4, Brockway does not explicitly disclose the limitations of Claim 4; however, in an analogous field of endeavor, Gao teaches “The system of claim 1, wherein the user interface includes a first visual window configured for displaying of at least one of the multiple images and” (Gao; Fig. 3 (See image below)) “a second visual window configured for management of the registration relationship model, and the operations further include:” (Gao; Fig. 3 (See image below)) “in response to receipt of a selection operation of the user via the first visual window,
displaying at least two of the multiple images according to the selection operation;” (Gao; Fig. 3 (See image below)) “opening the second visual window; and” (Gao; Fig. 3 (See image below), Pg.5, Para. 1; “The registration process is dynamically displayed in the interactive image display window in real time. The registration results and transformation parameters are automatically saved to the hard disk, and the output saving path can be customized.”) “managing a registration relationship of the at least two of the multiple images via the second visual window.” (Gao; Pg.5, Para. 1; “The registration process is dynamically displayed in the interactive image display window in real time. The registration results and transformation parameters are automatically saved to the hard disk, and the output saving path can be customized.”)
Accordingly, before the effective filing date of the instant application, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Brockway with the teachings of Gao to further display the user interface with two windows. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine Brockway and Gao to make the user interface easier to navigate and display changes to different registrations. Accordingly, the combination of Brockway and Gao discloses the invention of Claim 4.
PNG
media_image2.png
438
588
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Consider Claim 5, the combination of Brockway and Gao teaches “The system of claim 4, wherein the operations further include: obtaining a registration result of the at least two of the multiple images that is determined based on the registration relationship;” (Brockway; [0004]; “ In one example, the method may include receiving at least a first set of images, providing a first registration…”) “in response to receipt of an adjusting operation of the user via the second visual window,” (Brockway; [0033]; “ However, after the user moves the localization point 308 close to the second region 316A, the image registration engine/algorithm will rerun (for every move of the localization point) and the user will again determine whether the updated best lit local rigid registration displayed in the second image 306A has an acceptable quality. As discussed below, this checking of other locations can be rerun as many times as the user requires to satisfy a quality requirement.”) “adjusting the registration result of the at least two of the multiple images.” (Gao; Fig. 3, Pg.5, Para. 1; “The registration process is dynamically displayed in the interactive image display window in real time. The registration results and transformation parameters are automatically saved to the hard disk, and the output saving path can be customized.”)
The proposed combination as well as the motivation for combining the Brockway and Qin-Quan references presented in the rejection of claim 4, apply to claim 5 and are incorporated herein by reference. Thus, the method recited in claim 5 is met by Brockway and Gao.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brockway et al. (US-2014/0086464) in view of Gao (CN-106097347-A with publishing date of 11/09/2016) in further view of Klenk (EP 1085693 A2 with publishing date of 03/21/2001) in further view of Chui (US 20070177780).
Consider Claim 6, the combination of Brockway and Gao does not explicitly disclose the limitations of Claim 5; however, in an analogous field of endeavor, Klenk teaches “The system of claim 1, wherein the one of the multiple registration relationships is presented on the user interface by a line connecting the at least two of the multiple images,” (Klenk; Fig. 4 (See image below)).
“(Klenk; Fig. 4 (See image below)). Accordingly, before the effective filing date of the instant application, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Brockway and Gao with the teachings of Klenk to further visually display image registrations using lines denoting registration lines. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine Brockway, Gao, and Klenk to differentiate between registration relationship and easier to visualize for a user. Accordingly, the combination of Brockway, Gao, and Klenk discloses the above described limitations of Claim 6.
However, in an analogous field of endeavor, Chui teaches “different colors or types of lines representing different registration modes,” (Chui; [0006]; “Advantageously, the visual appearance of the markers varies with the lines with which they are associated. For example, they may have the same color as the line and that color may vary depending on whether the line joins features in the two images or the feature is found only in the first image in time or the second image in time.”). Accordingly, before the effective filing date of the instant application, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Brockway, Gao, and Klenk with the teachings of Chui to further visually display image registrations using different line colors. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine Brockway, Gao, Klenk, and Chui to differentiate between registration relationship and easier to visualize for a user. Accordingly, the combination of Brockway, Gao, Klenk, and Chui discloses the invention of Claim 6.
PNG
media_image3.png
674
447
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brockway (US-2014/0086464) in view of Hata (“Registration of Multi-Modality Medical Images by Soft Computing Approach” published in November 1999).
Consider Claim 9, Brockway teaches “The system of claim 1, wherein the registration mode includes a first registration process based on position information of the multiple images and” (Brockway) [0030]; “…a registration or an image after applying a registration to the image, including but not limited to a deformable registration and a rigid local registration, an image representing properties or aspects of a registration,”). Brockway does not explicitly teach ““a second registration process based on gray-level information of the multiple images.”.
However, in an analogous field of endeavor, Hata teaches “a second registration process based on gray-level information of the multiple images.” (Hata; Section 3; “Step 2) Match roughly by using the intensity information of three two-dimensional plane based on fuzzy membership calculation.”; Examiner notes the intensity information is interpreted as gray level information and is common knowledge to a person in the art.). Accordingly, before the effective filing date of the instant application, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Brockway with the teachings of Hata to further establish a second registration based on gray level information. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine Brockway and Hata “to clarify the location information” (Hata; Section 3). Accordingly, the combination of Brockway and Hata discloses the invention of Claim 9.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brockway (US-2014/0086464) in view of Stefan (WO 2021191438).
Consider Claim 10, Brockway does not explicitly disclose the limitations of Claim 10; however, in an analogous field of endeavor, Stefan teaches “The system of claim 1, wherein the operations further include: classifying the multiple images into multiple groups,” (Stefan; Pg. 7, Para. 3; “This allows grouping images into sets of images which have been taken for the same patient, depending on the determined similarity between the images.”) “the registration relationships of images in a same group presenting a same reference image, images in the same group represent a same portion of a subject, images in the same group correspond to a same coordinate system, images in the same group are acquired by a same scanner, or images in the same group is acquired according to one or more same scanning parameters.” (Stefan; Pg. 7, Para.3; “Using the registration as a means for correctly grouping the medical images is associated with the technical effect of leading to a correct result of the grouping also in the case of a deviation in imaging conditions or anatomy between the images to be grouped together.”). Accordingly, before the effective filing date of the instant application, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Brockway with the teachings of Stefan to further group image data together. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine Brockway and Stefan to further assist the user in image searching and locating in a short period of time. Accordingly, the combination of Brockway and Stefan discloses the invention of Claim 9.
Claims 13-14, 20-21, 24-25, and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stefan (WO 2021191438) in view of Hata (“Registration of Multi-Modality Medical Images by Soft Computing Approach” published in November 1999) in further view of Huang (CN 114119549 published on 03/01/2022).
Consider Claim 13, Stefan teaches “A system, comprising: at least one storage medium including a set of instructions; at least one processor in communication with the at least one storage medium, wherein when executing the set of instructions, the at least one processor is directed to cause the system to perform operations including:” (Stefan; Pg. 14, Para.8; “The computer for example comprises at least one processor and for example at least one memory in order to (technically) process the data, for example electronically and/or optically.”) “obtaining multiple images;” (Stefan; Pg. 3, Para.3-4; “In a (for example first) exemplary step of the method according to the first aspect, first patient image data is acquired which describes a first medical image of a first anatomical body part of a first patient. In a (for example second) exemplary step of the method according to the first aspect, second patient image data is acquired which describes a second medical image of a second anatomical body part of a second patient corresponding to the first anatomical body part.”) “classifying the multiple images into multiple groups;” (Stefan; Pg. Para.3; “This allows grouping images into sets of images which have been taken for the same patient, depending on the determined similarity between the images.”) “for each group of images, obtaining a first registration result by registering multiple images in the same group;” (Stefan; Pg. 6, Para. 4; “Furthermore, first registration data is determined based on a first image of each of the pairs of medical patient training images, the first registration data describing a first registration between the first image and the image-based model…”)
Stefan does not explicitly teach “for different groups of images, obtaining a second registration result by registering multiple reference images each of which belongs to one of the different groups of images;”. However, in an analogous field of endeavor, Hata teaches “for different groups of images, obtaining a second registration result by registering multiple reference images each of which belongs to one of the different groups of images; and” (Hata; Section 2; “In Fig. 1, the medical scanners can provide two modality images, and the registration system matches the two obtained images and then provides the two/three dimensional information of the same scene.”). Accordingly, before the effective filing date of the instant application, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Stefan with the teachings of Hata to further establish a second registration between different groups. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine Brockway and Hata create additional registrations between different groups to more efficiently search and locate images. Accordingly, the combination of Brockway and Hata discloses the above described limitation of Claim 13.
The combination of Stefan and Hata does not explicitly disclose “fusing the multiple images based on the first registration result and the second registration result.”. However, in an analogous field of endeavor, Huang teaches “fusing the multiple images based on the first registration result and the second registration result.” (Huang; Pg 6, Para. 2; “The invention performs two ICP registration operation by coarse registration and fine registration, at last, the rough registration conversion coefficient is combined with the fine registration conversion coefficient to calculate the final conversion coefficient”). Accordingly, before the effective filing date of the instant application, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Stefan and Hata with the teachings of Huang to further images based on the two registration relationship. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine Stefan, Hata, and Huang to overcome “the precision problem of ICP registration; further improves the precision of the image registration, it can assist the doctor to search and locate the focus more quickly, it effectively reduces the workload of the doctor, it guides direction for the future development road of medical image registration.” (Huang; Pg 6, Para. 2). Accordingly, the combination of Stefan, Hata, and Huang discloses the above described limitation of Claim 13.
Consider Claim 14, the combination of Stefan, Hata, and Huang teaches “The system of claim 13, wherein images in a same group represent a same portion of a subject, or images in a same group correspond to a same coordinate system, or images in a same group are acquired by a same scanner, or images in a same group are acquired according to one or more same scanning parameters.” (Stefan; Pg. 7, Para. 3; “This allows grouping images into sets of images which have been taken for the same patient, depending on the determined similarity between the images. Using the registration as a means for correctly grouping the medical images is associated with the technical effect of leading to a correct result of the grouping also in the case of a deviation in imaging conditions or anatomy between the images to be grouped together.”)
Consider Claim 20, the combination of Stefan, Hata, and Huang teaches “The system of claim 13, wherein the obtaining a first registration result by registering multiple images in the same group includes: registering each image in the group of images with the reference image in the group of images by a first registration process performed based on position information” (Stefan; Pg. 3, Para. 6; “In the context of this disclosure, a registration is a positional relation between images, for example between image constituents. A registration is embodied for example by a transformation such as a transformation matrix, specifically an elastic transformation or elastic deformation. A registration defines for example positional transformation between the positional reference systems used for defining positions in the images and/or between the positions of certain image constituents in the images.”) “and a second registration process based on gray-level information.” (Hata; Section 3; “Step 2) Match roughly by using the intensity information of three two-dimensional plane based on fuzzy membership calculation.”; Examiner notes the intensity information is interpreted as gray level information and is common knowledge to a person in the art.). The proposed combination as well as the motivation for combining the Stefan, Hata, and Huang references presented in the rejection of claim 13, apply to claim 20 and are incorporated herein by reference. Thus, the method recited in claim 20 is met by Stefan, Hata, and Huang.
Consider Claim 21, the combination of Stefan, Hata, and Huang teaches “The system of claim 20, wherein the first registration process is performed by operations including: determining a first transformation relationship between a first coordinate system applied to the image and a reference coordinate system applied to a subject;” (Stefan; “In the context of this disclosure, a registration is a positional relation between images, for example between image constituents. A registration is embodied for example by a transformation such as a transformation matrix, specifically an elastic transformation or elastic deformation. A registration defines for example positional transformation between the positional reference systems used for defining positions in the images and/or between the positions of certain image constituents in the images.” (emphasis added)) “determining a second transformation relationship between a second coordinate system applied to the reference image and the reference coordinate system applied to the subject;” (Stefan; Pg. 3, Para. 6; “A registration defines for example positional transformation between the positional reference systems used for defining positions in the images and/or between the positions of certain image constituents in the images.” (emphasis added)) “and determining an initial transformation relationship between the first coordinate system and the second coordinate system based on the first transformation relationship and the second transformation relationship.” (Huang; Pg 4, Para. 4; “Further, in the step S8, the final transformation coefficient is obtained by the fine registration transformation coefficient and the coarse registration transformation coefficient, and the final transformation coefficient includes the final rotation matrix R0 and the final translation amount T0…”; Examiner notes Huang teaches the coarse and fine transformation coefficient includes a rotation matrix and translation amount for each respective transformation relationship (Huang, Pg 3, Para. 9)). The proposed combination as well as the motivation for combining the Stefan, Hata, and Huang references presented in the rejection of claim 13, apply to claim 21 and are incorporated herein by reference. Thus, the method recited in claim 21 is met by Stefan, Hata, and Huang.
Consider Claim 24, the combination of Stefan, Hata, and Huang teaches “The system of claim 13,wherein the registering multiple reference images in the different groups of images includes a first registration process performed based on position information and” (Hata; Section 3; “Step I) For the two volumes, suppose a coordinate system including both volumes. We fix the MRA volume and transform the CT volume by steps 2 and 3.”) “a second registration process based on gray-level information.” (Hata; Section 3; “Step 2) Match roughly by using the intensity information of three two-dimensional plane based on fuzzy membership calculation.”; Examiner notes the intensity information is interpreted as gray level information and is common knowledge to a person in the art.). The proposed combination as well as the motivation for combining the Stefan, Hata, and Huang references presented in the rejection of claim 13, apply to claim 24 and are incorporated herein by reference. Thus, the method recited in claim 24 is met by Stefan, Hata, and Huang.
Consider Claim 25, the combination of Stefan, Hata, and Huang teaches “The system of claim 24, wherein the first registration process is performed by operations including: for two reference images, determining one or more reference points from each of the two reference images;” (Hata; Section 3; “In this system, as the feature, we define the soft tissue of human brain, which is easily obtained by thresholding from the both images. Two extracted soft tissues are also shown in Figure 3.”) “matching the one or more reference points determined from each of the two reference images to obtain corresponding reference points in the two reference images;” (Hata; Section 3; “The proximity function of the matching is defined on a feature which can be easily detected in both images.”) “and determining an initial transformation relationship between a first coordinate system and a second coordinate system applied to the two reference images, respectively, based on the corresponding reference points.” (Hata; Section 3; “Step I) For the two volumes, suppose a coordinate system including both volumes. We fix the MRA volume and transform the CT volume by steps 2 and 3.”). The proposed combination as well as the motivation for combining the Stefan, Hata, and Huang references presented in the rejection of claim 13, apply to claim 25 and are incorporated herein by reference. Thus, the method recited in claim 25 is met by Stefan, Hata, and Huang.
Consider Claim 27, Stefan teaches “A system, comprising: at least one storage medium including a set of instructions; at least one processor in communication with the at least one storage medium, wherein when executing the set of instructions, the at least one processor is directed to cause the system to perform operations including:” (Stefan; Pg. 14, Para.8; “The computer for example comprises at least one processor and for example at least one memory in order to (technically) process the data, for example electronically and/or optically.”) “obtaining multiple images;” (Stefan; Pg. 3, Para.3-4; “In a (for example first) exemplary step of the method according to the first aspect, first patient image data is acquired which describes a first medical image of a first anatomical body part of a first patient. In a (for example second) exemplary step of the method according to the first aspect, second patient image data is acquired which describes a second medical image of a second anatomical body part of a second patient corresponding to the first anatomical body part.”) “obtaining a first registration result based on position information of the multiple images;” (Stefan; Pg. 7, Para.3; “In the context of this disclosure, a registration is a positional relation between images, for example between image constituents. A registration is embodied for example by a transformation such as a transformation matrix, specifically an elastic transformation or elastic deformation. A registration defines for example positional transformation between the positional reference systems used for defining positions in the images and/or between the positions of certain image constituents in the images.”) “obtaining a second registration result based on gray-level information of the multiple images and the first registration result;
Stefan does not explicitly disclose “obtaining a second registration result based on gray-level information of the multiple images and the first registration result;”. However, in an analogous field of endeavor, Hata teaches “obtaining a second registration result based on gray-level information of the multiple images and the first registration result;” (Hata; Section 3; “Step I) For the two volumes, suppose a coordinate system including both volumes. We fix the MRA volume and transform the CT volume by steps 2 and 3.”. Step 2) Match roughly by using the intensity information of three two-dimensional plane based on fuzzy membership calculation.”; Examiner notes the intensity information is interpreted as gray level information and is common knowledge to a person in the art.). Accordingly, before the effective filing date of the instant application, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Stefan with the teachings of Hata to further establish a second registration based on gray level information. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine Brockway and Hata “to clarify the location information” (Hata; Section 3). Accordingly, the combination of Stefan and Hata discloses the above described limitations of Claim 27.
The combination of Stefan and Hata does not explicitly disclose “and fusing the multiple images based on the first registration result and the second registration result.”. However, in an analogous field of endeavor, Huang teaches “and fusing the multiple images based on the first registration result and the second registration result.” (Huang; Pg 6, Para. 2; “The invention performs two ICP registration operation by coarse registration and fine registration, at last, the rough registration conversion coefficient is combined with the fine registration conversion coefficient to calculate the final conversion coefficient”). Accordingly, before the effective filing date of the instant application, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Stefan and Hata with the teachings of Huang to further images based on the two registration relationship. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine Stefan, Hata, and Huang to overcome “the precision problem of ICP registration; further improves the precision of the image registration, it can assist the doctor to search and locate the focus more quickly, it effectively reduces the workload of the doctor, it guides direction for the future development road of medical image registration.” (Huang; Pg 6, Para. 2). Accordingly, the combination of Stefan, Hata, and Huang discloses the above described limitation of Claim 27.
Claims 18 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stefan (WO 2021191438) in view of Hata (“Registration of Multi-Modality Medical Images by Soft Computing Approach” published in November 1999) in further view of Huang (CN 114119549 published on 03/01/2022) in further view of Grady (US 20150302578).
Consider Claim 18, the combination of Stefan, Hata, and Huang does not explicitly disclose the limitations of Claim 18; however, in an analogous field of endeavor, Grady teaches “The system of claim 13, wherein the multiple reference images in one group of images corresponds to a maximum field of view among the one group of images or a maximum resolution among the one group of images.” (Grady; [0047]; “Then, step 345b may involve choosing an arbitrary image or an image with the greatest spatial resolution as a reference image.”). Accordingly, before the effective filing date of the instant application, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Stefan, Hata, and Huang with the teachings of Grady to further use reference with the maximum resolutions amount the group. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine Stefan, Hata, Huang and Grady to enable the clearest and most accurate image to be used as a reference to register future inputs. Accordingly, the combination of Stefan, Hata, Huang and Grady discloses the invention of Claim 18.
Consider Claim 23, the combination of Stefan, Hata, Huang teaches “The system of claim 13, wherein the obtaining a first registration result by registering multiple images in the same group includes registering one of the multiple images with the reference image in the same group;” (Stefan; Pg. 7, Para.3; “This allows grouping images into sets of images which have been taken for the same patient, depending on the determined similarity between the images. Using the registration as a means for correctly grouping the medical images is associated with the technical effect of leading to a correct result of the grouping also in the case of a deviation in imaging conditions or anatomy between the images to be grouped together.”) “and the registering multiple reference images each of which belongs to one of the different groups of images includes:” (Hata; Section 2; “In Fig. 1, the medical scanners can provide two modality images, and the registration system matches the two obtained images and then provides the two/three dimensional information of the same scene.”)
The combination of Stefan, Hata, and Huang does not explicitly disclose “determining a target reference image from the multiple reference images in the different groups of images and registering remaining reference images with the target reference image.” However, in an analogous field of endeavor; Grady teaches “determining a target reference image from the multiple reference images in the different groups of images;” (Grady; [0044]; “For example, the reference image may be arbitrary among the acquired images, retrieved from a reference image repository, selected intentionally from a set of acquired images, etc. Then, 3-D registration may be used to register each image to the reference image (step 325c).)” (emphasis added); Examiner notes the multiple reference images can be interpreted as their own set within the acquired images and allow for a target reference image to be determined from within the reference image set.) “and registering remaining reference images with the target reference image.” (Grady; [0044]; “For example, the reference image may be arbitrary among the acquired images, retrieved from a reference image repository, selected intentionally from a set of acquired images, etc. Then, 3-D registration may be used to register each image to the reference image (step 325c).)”. Accordingly, before the effective filing date of the instant application, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Stefan, Hata, and Huang with the teachings of Grady to further determine a target reference image. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine Stefan, Hata, Huang and Grady to further reduce the time to locate the image registration and reduce the workload on the user to search. Accordingly, the combination of Stefan, Hata, Huang and Grady discloses the invention of Claim 23.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 22 and 26 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but could be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: none of the cited prior art references, alone or in combination, provides a motivation to teach the ordered combination of the limitations recited in Claims 22 and 26 with the limitations of claims it depends from.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Annie Pham whose telephone number is (571)272-1673. The examiner can be normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00a – 5:00p.
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, Amandeep Saini can be reached on (571)272-3382. 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.
/ANNIE H PHAM/Examiner, Art Unit 2662
/Siamak Harandi/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2662
